Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be dismissed in its entirety merely because one of the reliefs sought is legally untenable, provided that other reliefs are maintainable and arise from independent causes of action.

The Court clarified that when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), it is not permissible to selectively sever prayers where distinct causes of action are pleaded and backed by separate sets of facts. This is because a plaintiff may raise multiple grievances, and even if one claim is unsustainable, the presence of another triable claim means that rejecting the entire plaint would unjustly deny the plaintiff access to justice.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the case where the appellant had purchased agricultural land. Later on, it borrowed ₹7.5 crore from the respondent, and executed two unregistered documents: an agreement to sell and a power of attorney authorizing Respondent to sell the land on its behalf. After some time, the company revoked both instruments. Despite this, Respondent proceeded to execute registered sale deeds in July 2022, transferring the property to himself and other parties.

Appellant subsequently filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the sale deeds were void, along with possession and injunction reliefs. But the Rajasthan High Court, treating the reliefs as a single claim, dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the first relief was invalid, without adjudicating the second relief, which involved a triable issue.

Challenging the High Court's ruling, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred in dismissing the plaint at the threshold despite a triable issue arising when the Respondent executed the sale deeds even after the power of attorney was revoked.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed:

“Therefore, the High Court's wholesale rejection of the plaint, without appreciating that the reliefs claimed flowed from multiple and distinct causes of action – particularly one arising after the revocation of the power of attorney – amounts to an improper application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Selective severance of reliefs is impermissible where different causes of action are independently pleaded and supported by distinct facts.”

The Court held that the High Court's approach was contrary to the settled position that a "plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of the plaint, it discloses no cause of action or falls within the other narrowly defined grounds under the said provision, such as under-valuation, insufficient court fees, or bar by any law. "

In support, the bench referred to its judgment in the case of Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 96, where it was held that when a Plaint includes multiple reliefs, it cannot be rejected solely because one of the reliefs is barred by law, as long as the other reliefs remain valid.

The court in Prabha Jain's case stated that there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint, and explained with an example:

“If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B.”

"In light of the above, we find that the trial court rightly held that the issues are triable and that the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was without merit. In contrast, the High Court erred in overturning this finding and rejecting the plaint in its entirety.", the court held.

The judgment summarised the position of law on rejection of plaint as follows :

"The position of law is that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only when the plaint, on its face and without considering the defence, fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by any law, is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected."

In terms of the aforesaid, the court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD. VERSUS MAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 630

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Aryaman Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apurv Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Chander, Adv. Mr. Yash Johri, Adv. Mr. Saransh Vij, Adv. Mr. Gurdeep Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Barnali Basak, Adv. Ms. Mahak Dua, Adv. Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR