Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a demurrer application. The defendant contends that even if all the averments in the plaint are taken as true, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, including the law of limitation. The advocate must establish that the plaint does not require any external evidence to be rejected at the threshold.
Courts examine the plaint as a whole, reading it meaningfully and not formally, to see whether a cause of action is made out. The defence or the plea that the plaint is cleverly drafted to circumvent a legal bar is tested by looking only at the plaint averments and the documents filed with it. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the power under this provision must be exercised strictly on the averments in the plaint, and a plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the defendant's allegations in the written statement or application.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
2003 INSC 179Supreme Court · 2003cited 11,973 times
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings, FIR, or complaint in matrimonial disputes even for non-compoundable offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC.…
- 2
State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another etc. etc.
1992 INSC 357Supreme Court · 1992cited 2,700 times
The Court dismissed the contempt petition and interlocutory applications. The statement of fact in a newspaper report is hearsay and inadmissible without proof by evidence aliunde. The applicant failed to discharge the…
- 3
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others
2010 INSC 428Supreme Court · 2010cited 2,516 times
1. A secured creditor is not required to exhaust remedies against the principal borrower before proceeding against the guarantor under the SARFAESI Act; the notices and application filed by the bank cannot be faulted…
- 4
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others
2021 INSC 253Supreme Court · 2021cited 2,233 times
Police has a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences; courts must not thwart investigation save in exceptional cases. Blanket "no coercive steps" orders without reasons are impermissible and hamper…
- 5
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.
2003 INSC 374Supreme Court · 2003cited 1,894 times
The amendment in Section 115 CPC does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari and its supervisory jurisdiction…
- 6
Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
2010 INSC 422Supreme Court · 2010cited 1,648 times
Appeal dismissed. High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition where the only respondent was a private landlord with no statutory or public duty and no collusion with any State authority, though its eventual…
- 7
Jai Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.
2010 INSC 642Supreme Court · 2010cited 1,108 times
The High Court traveled beyond the well-defined contours of its jurisdiction under Art. 227. That jurisdiction is supervisory and revisional — broader than Art. 226 in some respects, but not appellate; it does not…
- 8
M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.
1997 INSC 714Supreme Court · 1997cited 1,084 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the complaint and proceedings against the appellants. It held that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Article…
- 9
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K. C.
2018 INSC 71Supreme Court · 2018cited 1,054 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court. The SARFAESI Act provides a complete statutory framework with an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 (appeal to Debt…
- 10
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota v. M/S. Shukla & Brothers
2010 INSC 209Supreme Court · 2010cited 887 times
Recording of reasons is an indispensable part of the basic rule of law and constitutes an unqualified, mandatory obligation of courts — not merely a qualified duty. Courts must record reasons both at admission stage…
- 11
Gold Quest International Private Limited v. the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
2014 INSC 611Supreme Court · 2014cited 800 times
The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under s. 482 CrPC is distinct from and not limited by the compounding power under s. 320 of the Code. In disputes substantially matrimonial in nature, or…
- 12
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
1994INSC112Supreme Court · 1994cited 765 times
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the TADA Acts and the U.P. Amendment Act, finding them to be within Parliament's legislative competence. While upholding most provisions, the Court read into…
Frequently asked questions
Can a plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC if the defendant claims it is cleverly drafted to hide the true bar?
The court must decide the application solely on the plaint averments and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defendant's contention that the plaint is cleverly drafted does not permit the court to look into the defence or the written statement. If the plaint, read as a whole, discloses a cause of action and does not appear to be barred by any law from its own statements, it cannot be rejected merely because the defendant alleges a hidden bar.
What is the scope of inquiry by the court while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
The scope is limited to the plaint and its accompanying documents. The court must take all the plaint averments as true and correct. It cannot consider the defence raised by the defendant in the written statement or the rejection application. The court must see whether, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it discloses a cause of action or is barred by any law from the statements contained in the plaint itself.
How does the court treat the plea of limitation in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
The plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. For the plaint to be rejected at the threshold, the bar of limitation must be apparent on the face of the plaint itself. If the plaint averments show that the suit is ex facie time-barred, the court can reject it. However, if the question of limitation requires evidence or hinges on facts that are not clear from the plaint alone, the application must fail and the issue is left for trial.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on civil procedure & property
- Interim Injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell Immovable Property
- Amendment of Pleadings After Commencement of Trial (Order 6 Rule 17 CPC)
- Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Adverse Possession: Ingredients, Hostile Plea and Use as a Sword
- Eviction of Tenant on Ground of Bona Fide Requirement
- Land Acquisition Compensation and Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
- Scope of Review Petition Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC