#CPC Order VII Rule 11

The Madras HC set aside a trial court order returning an unnumbered plaint in an adverse possession suit against a TN Land Encroachment Act notice, holding courts must first number the plaint and hear the plaintiff on maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - a jurisdictional bar cannot justify bypassing this mandatory procedure.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a foreign arbitral award, even if unenforceable under Sections 48 and 49 of the Arbitration Act, does not extinguish the underlying civil cause of action. This means plaintiffs may still pursue recovery through a fresh suit, preventing litigants from being trapped by unenforceable awards and preserving access to judicial remedies under the CPC.

The Supreme Court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC merely because the cause of action arises from the same transaction, if it is based on newly discovered fraud. This holding clarifies that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar a separate suit where the cause of action is distinct, offering relief to plaintiffs alleging fraud in property disputes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that trial courts must first adjudicate applications for amendment of pleadings (Order VI Rule 17) and joinder of parties (Order I Rule 10) before rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The decision underscores procedural fairness, ensuring plaintiffs can rectify defects before facing dismissal.

Bombay High Court dismisses an election petition under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act for failing to disclose material facts about EVM-VVPAT discrepancies, reinforcing strict compliance with procedural requirements. The ruling underscores that election challenges cannot proceed without full disclosure of alleged irregularities, impacting future petitioners and electoral litigation strategy.

Bombay HC dismisses election petition for failing to plead specific corrupt practices under Section 83 of the RP Act. The court holds that mere non-disclosure of criminal cases or incomplete affidavit details, without proof of material impact on election outcome, does not constitute grounds for election nullification. Petitioners must provide full particulars of suppression to sustain allegations of corrupt practice.

Bombay High Court holds that a non-contracting party may be sued for tortious interference with contractual obligations, rejecting threshold rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.