Plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if reliefs claimed in it cannot be granted under law

In the matter of Rajendra Bajoria Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan (CA 5819-­5822 of 2021) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 21.09.2021

FACTS: In this case, a civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs before the Calcutta High Court claiming various reliefs in connection with assets and properties of the firm “Soorajmull Nagarmull”. The case of the plaintiffs is that in spite of demise of the three original partners of the partnership firm, through whom the plaintiffs were claiming, the defendants have been carrying on the business of the partnership firm.

The defendants filed application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and the relief as claimed in the plaint could not be granted. Though the single bench dismissed these applications, they were allowed by the Division Bench.

In appeal, the appellant contended that the Division Bench, in the impugned judgment and order, has almost conducted a mini-­trial to find out as to whether the relief as claimed in the plaint could be granted or not. That, such an exercise is impermissible while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. On the other hand respondents, contended that, if the reliefs as sought in the plaint, cannot be granted, then the only option available to the Court is to reject the plaint.

OBSERVATIONS: The Apex Court relying on the judgment of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 and Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (2004) 3 SCC 172) observed that reading of the averments made in the plaint should not only be formal but also be meaningful. It has been time and again held that if clever drafting creates the illusion of a cause of action, and a meaningful reading thereof would show that the pleadings are manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense that they do not convey a clear right to sue, then the Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the suit would have to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself.

The Hon’ble Court while agreeing with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. However, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is also cast upon the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon or whether the suit is barred by law. Further it was observed that in such cases, it is necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.