The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure merely because the defendant disputes the factual assertions or raises a strong defence. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts must assess the sufficiency of pleadings at the threshold stage without delving into contested merits.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondents filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition, possession, and permanent injunction over ancestral property allegedly sold by defendant No. 1 beyond his share. The petitioner, defendant No. 2, challenged the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending multiple defects including absence of cause of action, improper valuation, non-compliance with verification rules, and failure to serve notice under Section 80 CPC.
Procedural History
- 2025: Suit filed by respondents in II District Judge’s Court, Dewas
- 2025: Petitioner filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal
- 14.08.2025: Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that cause of action was disclosed
- 2025: Civil Revision filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the dismissal order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of non-disclosure of cause of action, lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, procedural irregularities in pleading, and non-compliance with mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, may reject a plaint based on disputed facts, defences raised by the defendant, or alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements that require evidentiary determination.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the suit was defective on multiple grounds: (i) no cause of action existed because the property was self-acquired, not ancestral; (ii) the suit was improperly valued, placing it beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court; (iii) the plaint was not properly verified under Order VI Rule 15 CPC; and (iv) mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC was not served before suing the State. Reliance was placed on T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal to argue that frivolous suits must be dismissed at the threshold.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the plaint clearly alleged ancestral property, their share therein, and fraudulent alienation by the defendants. They emphasized that at the Order VII Rule 11 stage, courts must accept the plaint’s averments as true and cannot examine defences or evidence. Reliance was placed on Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vijai Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal to affirm that rejection of plaint is a drastic remedy, permissible only where no cause of action is disclosed on the face of the pleading.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous review of the settled jurisprudence on Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It emphasized that the stage of rejection under this provision is not for adjudicating the truth of allegations, but for determining whether the plaint, on its face, discloses a cause of action. The Court held that the defendant’s counter-narrative regarding ownership, partition, or valuation cannot be weighed at this stage.
"The Court has no jurisdiction to consider the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the plaint or the defence set up by the defendant while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC."
The Court distinguished T. Arivandandam by noting that the present plaint was not a manifest abuse of process; it contained specific allegations of joint family property, share, and unauthorized sale. The Court further held that defects in verification under Order VI Rule 15 or non-compliance with Section 80 CPC are curable irregularities and do not warrant outright rejection. The failure to serve notice on the State, while technically non-compliant, did not prejudice the suit since no adverse order had been passed against the State and notice had since been served.
Regarding valuation, the Court found that the plaintiffs had correctly assessed the suit value based on the consideration in the registered sale deed, as permitted under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The Court concluded that the Trial Court had correctly applied the law and that the petitioners’ arguments sought premature adjudication of factual disputes.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court affirmed the Trial Court’s order, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action on its face and that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner satisfied the strict conditions for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court emphasized that procedural irregularities are curable and that merits cannot be examined at the pleading stage.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pleading Sufficiency Trumps Defence Arguments
- Practitioners must file applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only when the plaint is facially devoid of any cause of action
- Merely disputing ownership, title, or valuation in written statement does not justify rejection of plaint
- Courts must resist the temptation to conduct a mini-trial at the pleading stage
Curable Defects Cannot Be Grounds for Rejection
- Non-compliance with Order VI Rule 15 (verification) or Section 80 CPC (notice to government) cannot lead to dismissal if the defect is curable
- Courts should permit amendment or supplementation rather than reject the plaint outright
- Practitioners should raise such objections in written statement or through application for amendment, not under Order VII Rule 11
Valuation Must Be Based on Relief Sought, Not Disputed Facts
- Plaintiffs may value suits based on the consideration in sale deeds when seeking declaration, partition, or injunction
- Courts must accept the plaintiff’s valuation unless it is patently absurd or fraudulent
- Defence arguments about incorrect valuation must be raised during trial, not at the pleading stage
