PREMINARY DETAILS

REJECTION OF PLAINT
R.K. Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5540 of 2016 (Arising out of
S.L.P. (C) No. 15474 of 2016)
FORUM – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

“
The appellant (R.K. Roja) was elected to the 289 Nagiri Assembly Constituency. The first respondent
(U.S. Rayudu) filed a petition challenging the election of the appellant to the said Constituency. Notice
of the respondent petition was provided to the appellant. On receiving the notice, the appellant filed a
counter-affidavit for rejection of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedural Code 1908.
This was not considered by the court on the pretext that there was no formal application made for the
rejection of petition and thus the court continued with the trial. After this, the appellant filed a formal
application for the rejection of petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC clause (a), on the ground that the
petition did not disclose any facts or cause of action. This application was posted two years later, along
with the appeal in the Supreme Court.”

ISSUES

1. Whether the court can proceed with the trial without disposing of application filed by appellant?
2. Whether appellant can be denied the right to file a written statement upon the rejection of the
application?

ANALYSIS
“
Under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedural Code 1908, it is the law that an application submitted for
rejection of plaint must be disposed of by the court prior to proceeding with the trial. If the application
has been disposed, the defendant can then file a written statement.”
“
The High Court was of the view that since the appellant did not show due diligence in filing the
application at the earliest opportunity, the court had proceeded with the trial and thus the application
submitted would be considered at the final hearing of the trail.” The application being considered at the
final hearing would therefore deny the defendant with the right to file a written statement.
“
The Supreme Court however referred to previous case named, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable V. Charity
Commr. 2004, to state that an application made for rejection of petition Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil
Procedural Code 1908 can be filed at any given stage as the mentioned rule does not explicitly lay
down a particular time frame within which the application must be submitted. The Supreme Court
further referred Sukhdeo Sable V. Charity Commr. to state that it is the duty and obligation of every
court to reject any plaint made if it falls under any of the four clauses (a) to (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of
Civil Procedural Code 1908, and it is not necessary for an application of rejection to be submitted by
the defendant for the court to look into the clauses for the rejection of the plaint. The Court can reject a
plaint even without an application of rejection of plaint from the defendant, because it would be
pointless to go ahead with the trial and later reject the plaint as held in Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of
Maharashtra And Ors, 2003.”
“
The Supreme Court in the given case held that since the High Court did not follow the procedure of the
law as mentioned under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedural Code 1908 i.e. to dispose the application
before conducting the trial, the order by the High Court to consider the application at the final hearing
would be set aside. The Supreme Court after having heard the counsel of the appellant, came to the
decision that the petition filed by the respondent does not satisfy any of the clauses mentioned in Order
7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedural Code 1908. Therefore, rejecting the application and giving the appellant
two weeks to file a written statement before the High Court proceeds with the trial. The Supreme Court
further held that, the right to file for an application of rejection cannot be misused to reclaim a
previously lost opportunity to file a written statement.”

RULE OF LAW

1. Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedural Code 1908 – Rejection of Plaint”

i. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC clause (a) - where it does not disclose a cause of action;
ii. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC clause (b) - where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed
by the Court, fails to do so;
iii. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC clause (c) - where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the
plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by
the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to
do so;
iv. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC clause (d) - where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law;
2. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 137
3. Saleem Bhai and Ors v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 557

CONCLUSION
“
Through this judgment, the SC has emphasised that the power of the courts under Order 7 Rule 11 of
Civil Procedural Code 1908 are mandatory in nature and may be exercised at any stage of the suit,
either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of
the trial. However, it has also clarified that the power conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil
Procedural Code 1908 is a drastic one and that the requirements enumerated therein should be strictly
adhered to. In this case, the SC upheld the orders of the lower courts, rejecting the plaint at the
threshold since it found that the institution of the Suit by the Plaintiff was clearly an abuse of the
process of the court and was bereft of any merit.”