Order VII rule 11(e) rejection of plaint
We assume everyone is aware about what is plaint. Plaint is a document submitted to Court by the plaintiff detailing about the matter, cause of action and prayer along with other necessary particulars.
Plaint during filing has to fulfil certain requirements in order to be acceptable by the court, in this article we will now discuss about few things that may lead to rejection of the plaint.
As per Order IV rule 1, it is required that plaint has to be filed in duplicate the consequence of not fulfilling this is stated in provision Order VII rule 11 (e) as per which the plaint shall be rejected if not filed in duplicate.
One might think just because non-submission of two copies why plaint is rejected, it is to avoid any conflict between the parties and the court later on, one copy serves as proof for the court and the exact same copy is presented to defendant is necessary. This can only be ascertain when the plaintiff submits the plaint in duplicate.
The court may reject the plaint on the grounds of non-fulfilment of the requirements of Order VII rule 11(e) and for such rejection it is not required to wait for the first hearing rather rejection can be done at any stage that is even before the day of first hearing or on after that date of first hearing.
The only remedy available is appeal against rejection order or filing of fresh suit as provided in Order VII rule 13.
On the other hand in the case of Order XI rule 2 to the court can dismiss the suit on the same ground but only when it is proved that due to the said defect the defendant could not receive the summons and also that the defendant could not appear on first hearing because of serving of summons on such date will have the option of either dismissing the suit or rejecting the plaint.
In the cases of dismissal, the option before plaintiff is either to file a fresh suit or apply for setting aside of dismissal order but in no case appeal shall be allowed.
Although the Order VII rule 11 is not exhaustive on the matters of rejection of plaint. There can be a rejection of plaint even beyond Order VII rule 13 which is done directly under section 151 of Code of civil procedure. For instance the concept of superio vary is developed wherein if it comes to the knowledge of the court that plaintiff has suppressed material facts in plaint then the court may reject the plaint under section 151.
Case Study Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhatar Singh Gill AIR 1982 SC
The court observed in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhatar Singh Gill AIR 1982 SC that only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, segregation and dissection of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course adopted it would run counter to the general rule of interpretation according to which the pleadings has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true meaning. It is not permissible to remove a sentence or a passage and read it out of the context in isolation. It is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into. The pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party is to be gathered primarily from the terms of his pleadings Taken as a whole. No precise approach should be adopted to defeat the Justice.
Further, It was held in *S.J.S. Business Enterprises Private Limited v. State of Bihar and others 2004 SC the rule of superio vary is evolved out of the need of the court to deter the litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed facts must be the material facts.
Under Order VI, rule 16 the court is unable to strike out of pleading:
Which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
Which made tend to embarrass or delay the fair trial of a suit, or
Which is otherwise an abuse of process of the court.
On the other hand rule 11 of Order VII enjoins the court to reject plaint and where it does not disclose the cause of action. There is no question of striking out any portion of the pleadings under this rule. The court cannot dissect the pleading into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action also there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint.