LEGAL REASOING OF ORDER VII, RULE 11 CPC

LEGAL REASOING OF ORDER VII, RULE 11 CPC - REJECTION OF PLAINT
The aim of order 7 rule 11
REJECTION OF THE PLAINT (RULE 11):
Under Order 7 Rule 11, Rejection of plaint.– The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to
correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently
stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within
a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the
requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied
that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation
or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and
that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
GROUNDS FOR THE REJECTION OF THE PLAINT:
 Where plaint does not disclose the cause of action
The power to reject the plaint on this ground should be exercised only if the court comes to
the conclusion that even if all the allegations set out in the plaint are proved, the plaintiff
would not be entitled to any relief.
A plaint can only be disclosed as a whole in the absence of cause of action and not just a
part can be rejected.
 Where relief claimed is undervalued

Whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected
within the time fixed or extended by the court, the plaint to be rejected.
 Where the plaint is insufficiently stamped
Even when the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written on a paper
insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff fails to pay the requisite court fees within the time
fixed or extended by the court.
However, if the requisite Court fee is paid within the time extended by the Court, the suit or
appeal must be treated as instituted from the date of presentation of plaint or memorandum
of appeal for the purpose of limitation as well as payment of Court fee.
If the plaintiff cannot pay the Court fee, Order 33 provides for continuing the suit as an
indigent person.
 Where the suit is barred by law
Where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law, the court
will reject the plaint. For instance, if the plaint itself shows that the claim is barred by
limitation, the plaint can be rejected.
 Where the plaint is not in duplicate.

 Where there is non-compliance with statutory provisions
The plaint must be in compliance with Rule 9.
 Other grounds
If the plaint is signed by other person not authorised by the plaintiff, if the plaint is meritless,
not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court may reject the plaint.
THE REAL OBJECT OF RULE 11:
Order 10 is a tool in hands of court to effectuate the object behind Order 7 Rule 11. In the
case, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr.[1], the court held that under Order 7 Rule
11, if there is any defect as contemplated by Rule 11 (c) or non-compliance as referred to in
Rule 11 (f) the court should ordinarily give an opportunity for rectifying the defects and in the
event of the same not being done the court will have the liberty or the right to reject the
plaint.
PROCEDURE FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT (RULE 12):
Where a plaint is rejected by the court, the judge will pass an order to that effect and will
record reasons for such rejection.
The recording of reasons is mandatory during rejection. When the court rejects the plaint,
recording of reasons is mandated by Rule 12.
In the case, Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta[2], the court has said that the rejection
of the plaint is to be determined solely in terms of what is aversed in plaint and not what
plaintiff pleads in appeal or in some other suit. Hence, plaint cannot be saved from rejection
on the basis that one of the plaintiffs may be entitled to relief sought in the rejected plaint on
the basis of averments made in revision/ appeal against its rejection or in some other suit
was held in Soumik Sil V. Subhas Chandra Sil[3]also.
[1] (2004) 3 SCC 137.
[2] (2007) 10 SCC 59
[3] (2015) 5 SCC 732
The Advisor's Law Firm

23 March 2017 ·
Order 7 Rule 11
Citation Name : 2010 CLC 141 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : TEXTAINER EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Side Opponent : MEGAFEEDER (PVT.) LIMITED
O. vii , Rr. 2 & 11---Suit for recovery of amount---Rejection of plaint---Application for---ingredients required
for dismissal of suit---For the purpose of deciding an application under O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C., only the
averments made in the plaint were to be taken into consideration and nothing else was to be considered for that
purpose---Plaintiff in the plaint had shown, the cause of action that had accrued--Mere denial by the defendants
could not suffice---Provisions of clause (a) of O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. were of no help to the defendants---No
controversy as envisaged under clauses (b) and (c) of O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. with regard to valuation of the
relief claimed or the same being written on insufficiently stamped paper---Under clause (d) of O. vii , R.11 ,
C.P.C., the court was to decide on the basis of the averments made in the plaint whether the suit was barred by
any law---Application filed by the defendants under O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2006 SCMR 489 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : ABDUL WAHEED
Side Opponent : Mst. RAMZANU
--Ss. 12 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plain t---Scope---Cause of
action---During pendency of suit be fore Trial Court, plain tiffs filed application for amendment of plain t and
defendants filed application for rejection of plain t for having no cause of action---Trial Court dismissed the
application filed by defendants and allowed the plain tiffs to amend the plain t---Appellate Court, in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court and rejected the plain t---Such order of
Appellate Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Where cause of action was disclosed in the plain t,
plain tiff had a right to have a fair trial of his case, to produce evidence and to have a judicial opinion of a
Court on merits of his cause---Plaint could only be rejected when the averments made therein , if accepted, did
not entitle plain tiff to a relief---If the re was no room for any other possible approach to the case and no triable
issue was made same was liable to be rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Court had to presume that every
averment made in the plain t was true, therefore, power to reject the plain t under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C. , must be
exercised only if the Court had come to the conclusion that even if all the allegations were proved, the plain tiff
would not be entitled to any relief---Power to reject the plain t should not be exercised except in a clear case---
Trial Court was justified to dismiss the application of defendants, under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C. whereas the
revisional Court and High Court erred in law to reverse the same without adverting to the real controversy be
tween the parties---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal in to appeal and set aside the orders
passed by Appellate Court and High Court and restored that of the Trial Court.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHARIF
Side Opponent : INAYAT ULLAH
Limitation Act 1908 Arts. 95, 91,120 & 144---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 23--Disposal of
suit on preliminary plea of limitation---Effect---Transaction of sale by attorney of plain tiffs on their be half---
Plain tiffs admittedly had knowledge of transaction in 1977---Suit was brought by plain tiff to challenge sale
transaction in 1988---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court on ground of limitation and decision of Trial Court
was affirmed by Appellate. Court on point of limitation---High Court remanding case for decision afresh on
the ground that question of limitation, in view of pleadings of parties, could only be decided on evidence---
Validity---Plain tiffs had not sought setting aside/cancellation of impugned power of attorney but only sought
it to be declared as void and sale made in pursuance, therefore, was not bin din g on the m---Plain tiffs prayer
for direction to Registrar for cancelling registered deed was only incidental to the main relief for declaration
and possession---On averments made in plaint neither Art. 95 nor Art. 91, Limitation Act, 1908 were
applicable---Moot point in plaintiff's case was as to when precisely cause of action accrued to plaintiffs so as to
enable the m to file suit---Such question could not be decided without recording evidence on averments made
in plain t as highlighted in judgment of High Court under appeal---High Court having rightly remitted case to
Trial Court for decision of suit in accordance with law, interference, thereto , was not warranted in
circumstances.
Ciation Name : 2011 SCMR 27 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MIR SAHIB JAN
Side Opponent : JANAN
Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. vii , R.11 ---Suit for declaration, possession,
injunction and cancellation of fresh sale agreement---Dismissal of previous/first suit based on another
agreement upheld up to Supreme Court---Rejection of plaint in second suit, application for---Defendant's plea
was that plaintiff in second suit and earlier suit was not same person; and that second suit was not maintainable
in view of previous litigation on same subject---Validity---Cause of action in second suit was based on a fresh
agreement---Questions requiring determination were as to whether second suit had any nexus with first suit,
and whether plaintiff was same person, who had been contesting previous proceedings---Such questions being
questions of fact could adequately be resolved by granting opportunity to parties of producing evidence after
framing necessary issues.
Side Appellant : Mrs. ANIS HAIDER
Side Opponent : S. AMIR HAIDER
Ss. 12(2), 141 & O. vii , R.11 (a)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. containing serious allegations of forgery
and fraud---Rejection of such application on basis of reply/written statement by invoking provision of O. vii ,
R.11 (a), C.P.C.---Validity---Order vii , R.11 , C.P.C. pertaining to suits and plaints in particular would. be
attracted only when plaint, by itself, did not disclose any cause of action---Order vii , R.11 , C.P.C. could not
be attracted on basis of written statement as initial burden would remain on plaintiff/applicant to prove his case
on basis of assertions made in pleadings Pleadings of parties could not be taken as evidence , particularly when
its maker was not even examined in its support and cross-examined by his opponent---Provision of S.141,
C.P.C. would not attract to such application---Substantial requirement of recording of evidence on pure and
serious question of fact could not be by-passed by unjustifiably invoking of O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C.---Such
application could not be decided on mere reply/written statement by respondent without recording of evidence
---Principles.
---Principles.
Side Appellant : Q.B.E. INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD
Side Opponent : JAFFAR FLOUR AND OIL MILLS LTD
O. vii , R.11 ---Rejection of plaint, application for---Defendant's plea was that issue involved in suit had
already been decided in earlier litigation in terms of compromise---Plaintiff denied such plea---Validity---
Plaint had been entertained on basis of whatever cause of action had been mentioned therein---Parties were at
variance on question of earlier litigation ending with compromise---Such question could be settled only after
framing of issues and recording of evidence ---Application was rejected in circumstances.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AMIN
Ss. 12, 39 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. vii , R.11 ---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.113---
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Suit for specific performance of contract, sale cancellation and
permanent injunction---Rejection of plaint---Plaint was rejected under O. vii , R.11 C.P.C. on the ground that it
was barred by time---Revision petition and then constitutional petition against said rejection order, had been
dismissed---Validity---Plaint had shown that plaintiff had filed suit beyond the period of limitation prescribed
under Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908---Trial Court, in circumstances was not required to frame issue and
record evidence ---Argument advanced by counsel for the plaintiff was absolutely misconceived and not
tenable---No infirmity or illegality existed in the judgment delivered by the High Court same warranted no
interference---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Side Appellant : PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Mianwali and others
Side Opponent : MEHMOOD-UL-HASSAN KHAN
--S. 42---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (Xvii of 1967), S.80---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 20(c),
115 & O. vii , R.11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Rejection of plaint---Partial cause of
action---Territorial jurisdiction of civil court---Determination---Arrears of land revenue, recovery of---
Plaintiff, a contractor was declared to be defaulter---District Collector of the District in which plaintiff was
running the contract passed an order for recovery of defaulted amount as arrears of land revenue---District
Collector of the District, where plaintiff was residing initiated the proceedings against the plaintiff on such
order---Plaintiff assailed the recovery proceedings before civil courts in the district of his residence---
Authorities filed application under O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. on the ground that Trial Court did not have territorial
jurisdiction over the cause of action---Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint---Order
passed by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court but High Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction set aside the orders passed by both the courts below and directed Trial Court to decide the case in
accordance with law---Validity---As cause of action had partly arisen at the district of residence of plaintiff,
therefore, High Court was justified to reverse the orders of the courts below, while exercising power under
S.115, C.P.C.---Judgment passed by High Court was in accordance with S.20(c), C.P.C. and settled law---High
Court after reappraisal of evidence on record had come to a definite conclusion that part of cause of action had
accrued to plaintiff at' the district of his residence---Supreme Court, while exercising power under Art. 185 (3)
of the Constitution, declined to interfere with finding of fact recorded by High Court---Leave to appeal was
refused.
--Ss. 12 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. vii , R.11 ---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Cause of
action---During pendency of suit before Trial Court, plaintiffs filed application for amendment of plaint and
defendants filed application for rejection of plaint for having no cause of action---Trial Court dismissed the
application filed by defendants and allowed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint---Appellate Court, in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court and rejected the plaint---Such order of
Appellate Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Where cause of action was disclosed in the plaint,
plaintiff had a right to have a fair trial of his case, to produce evidence and to have a judicial opinion of a Court
on merits of his cause---Plaint could only be rejected when the averments made therein, if accepted, did not
entitle plaintiff to a relief---If there was no room for any other possible approach to the case and no triable
issue was made same was liable to be rejected under O. vii, R.11 , C.P.C.---Court had to presume that every
averment made in the plaint was true, therefore, power to reject the plaint under O. vii , R.11 C.P.C. , must be
exercised only if the Court had come to the conclusion that even if all the allegations were proved, the plaintiff
would not be entitled to any relief---Power to reject the plaint should not be exercised except in a clear case---
Trial Court was justified to dismiss the application of defendants, under O. vii , R.11 C.P.C. whereas the
revisional Court and High Court erred in law to reverse the same without adverting to the real controversy
between the parties---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the orders
Side Appellant : ARBAB JEHANGIR KHAN and others
Side Opponent : INAYATULLAH KHAN
---Paras. 13 & 26---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & O. vii , R. 11--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art. 185(3) --- Surrender of Shamilat Land under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.11 5)---Suit
challenging validity of surrender---Rejection of plaint pursuant to bar of jurisdiction in para.26 of the
Regulation---Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider questions that under what conditions and with
special reference to para. 13 of M.L.R. 115, civil Court does or does not have jurisdiction whether provisions
of O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. were invoked by Courts below under genuine circumstances and was recording of
evidence necessary even for determination of question of jurisdiction; and what was the nature of title and
possession of suit-land at the time of surrender and who among the parties was justified to surrender and with
what effect.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ALTAF
Side Opponent : ABDUR REHMAN KHAN
Civil Procedure Code --Order vii of C.P.C. Plaint ----O. vii , R.11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.185(3)---Plaint, rejection of ---Averments contained in plaint, effect of---Allegation of fraud---Such
allegation was raised in the plaint but Single Judge of High. Court allowed the application under O. vii , R.11 ,
C.P.C. and rejected the suit---Appeal before Division Bench of High Court was allowed and order of the
Single Judge was set aside ---Validity---Averments contained in plaint were presumed to be correct for the
purpose of application under O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C.---Division Bench of High Court had rightly pointed out that
allegation of fraud which was also averred in the plaint could not have been resolved without recording
evidence ---Single Judge being not justified in non-suiting the plaintiffs under O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. leave to
appeal was refused.
Side Appellant : TABASSAM NAZIR
Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD
Specific Relief Act 1877 S. 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---
Suit for declaration of rights of inheritance ---Averments trade in the plaint and material brought on record by
plaintiffs had made out a case for further proceedings with the plaint/suit, initial onus to prove fraud etc.
having been perpetuated by any side in relation to the civil rights of citizens, remained on the plaintiff/party
alleging such a state of affairs; snapping of the tie which made a litigation qualified for being proceeded with
for trial in relation to the respective rights of inheritance of people similarly placed as private parties, could riot
be countenanced in law and question with regard to the suit being barred by time or not also required
production of evidence by the parties in the suit---Remedy---Pleadings of the parties should have been attended
to in accordance with the normal procedure relating to trial of suits/disputes after full dressed arguments in line
with the oral and documentary evidence brought on the record---Such having ,not been done and the entire
litigation having taken a different turn after the submission of their written statements by the defendants in the
case, the defendant side made an application under (.vii , R.11 , C.P.C. and the same was taker: upon alongside
the earlier application of the plaintiff side under O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C. P. C. and S. 151, C. P. C.---Lot of
time was consumed in having the dispute resolved. at the interim stage by the Trial Court, the
appellate/revisional forum and the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction---Supreme Court, in
circumstances, converted the petition for leave to appeal, allowed the same and remanded the matter to the
Trial Court for its hearing after framing appropriate issues and allowing opportunity to the parties to lead
whatever evidence they wanted to in the cause.
Side Appellant : TARIQ MAHMOOD CHAUDHRY KAMBOH
Side Opponent : NAJAM-UZT-DIN
Civil Procedure Code --Order vii of C.P.C. Plaint O. vii , R. 11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--
-Rejection of plaint---Leave to appeal was sought against judgment of High Court passed in revision in which
High Court upheld decision of Civil Court dismissing application of petitioner for rejection of plaint---
Petitioner had filed an application under O. vii , R. 11, C.P.C. in a suit praying that plaint in suit filed against
him should be rejected as suit was barred by time---Trial Court repelled the contention of petitioner and
revision against decision of Trial Court was dismissed by High Court---Validity---Trial Court had already
framed issue to the effect whether suit was within time and also gave finding that question of limitation in the
case was a mixed question of law and fact and said issue could only be resolved after recording of evidence
touching controversy---No error had been committed either by Trial Court or High Court while arriving at such
finding---Civil Court had rightly rejected application filed by petitioner under O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. and High
Court also correctly upheld the said order--Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Side Appellant : QADAR GUL
Side Opponent : MOEMBAR KHAN
N.-W.F.P. Pre-Emption Act 1987 -----S.12---North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987),
S.13--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. vii , R.11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Suit
for pre-emption ---Rejection of plaint before filing of written statement---Order of Trial Court rejecting plaint,
was maintained up to High Court---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions that there
had been specific allegation in plaint that on having come to know of sale of house in question, plaintiff had
declared there and then his right of preemption and had sent Jirga and also sent notice as required under the
law and that North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950 was extended to area in question and after
decision of Supreme Court in Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360), North-West Frontier Province Pre-
emption Act, 1987, having not been extended to area in question, Courts below were wrong to dismiss
plaintiff's suit without recording evidence on merits of case, though provision of Talb had been fully complied
with
Side Appellant : GHULAM NABI
Side Opponent : FAQIR MUHAMMAD
West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 ----S. 2-A---Civil Procedure Code (V of
1908),O. vii , R.11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Custom Punjab)---Rejection of plaint-
Validity---Last male-holder died on 6-2-1917; his only son had predeceased him---Predeceased son of last
male-holder had two sons. one of which was dead when mutation was sanctioned where under 1/2 share was
mutated in favour of grandson and the other half in favour of widow of other grandson---Predeceased grandson
had left behind one daughter who got nothing out of his property--Widow of predeceased grandson of last
male-holder died on 18-3-1923 and on her death mutation was entered in the name of surviving grandson of
last male holder who, thus, became owner of the whole property left behind by his grandfather---Daughter of
predeceased grandson of last male-holder got no share from the property of her father even after death of her
mother who was holding the estate as limited owner---Heirs of daughter brought suit to claim share of their
mother---Defendants who had inherited the whole estate of last male-holder as heirs of his surviving grandson
applied for rejection of plaint---Trial Court dismissed such application but High court in revisional jurisdiction.
rejected plaint---Validity---Petitioners contended that rejection of plaint in terms of O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. was
totally uncalled, for questions raised in suit required examination of evidence in order to establish, whether on
death of limited owner property in question was inherited by surviving grandson of last male-holder to the
exclusion of other heirs---Respondents on the other hand contended that entry in register of mutations was
partly based on mistake for at the time entry was being made in favour of surviving grandson of last male-
holder, daughter of deceased grandson was alive, therefore, dispute in question. related. to inheritance on
demise of limited owner---Contentions raised by parties required deeper examination---Leave to appeal was
granted to consider whether rejection. of plaint by High Court under O. vii .R.11 C P.C. was justified in
circumstances.
Side Appellant : ABDUL AZIZ
Side Opponent : SAINAN BIBI ALIAS HUSSAINA BIBI
Civil Procedure Code --Order vii of C.P.C. Plaint ----O. vii , R.11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185-
--Rejection of plaint ---Validity---Net profits-table produced by plaintiff did not relate to relevant period i.e.
Kharif 1978 and Rabi 1979, but pertained to Kharif 1977 and Rabi 1978, therefore, same could not have been
accepted for purpose of determining amount of court-fee---Plaintiff's plaint, however, could not have been
rejected, for Court was obliged to grant plaintiff time for payment of proper court-fee---Judgments and decrees
of Courts below rejecting plaint were, thus, set aside and case remanded to First Appellate Court for deciding
appeal afresh---Parties were to be allowed to lead evidence on question of net profits of relevant years.
Side Appellant : KARIM BIBI
Side Opponent : ZUBAIR
Civil Procedure Code --Order vii of C.P.C. Plaint ----O. vii , R.11 ---Rejection of plaint---Validity---None of
the grounds mentioned in O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. existed to non-suit plaintiff---Plaintiffs' evidence had already
been recorded so also part of defendant's evidence was on record---Parties were seriously at issue---Court
instead of rejecting plaint could decide the dispute by referring to the evidence ---Order of rejection of plaint
was not warranted in circumstances.
Side Appellant : FATIMA MOEEN
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA
Civil Procedure Code --Order vii of C.P.C. Plaint ----O. vii , R.11 ---Suit for declaration that the original sale
was illegal, void ab initio and ineffective on plaintiffs right on -account of the transaction having been entered
into without the prior permission of Guardian Judge and was not for the benefit of the minor or for legal
necessity---Rejection of plaint on point of limitation---Plaintiff was minor at the time of the original sale and
was within her right to challenge the same on any ground available. to her under the law after attaining
majority---Period of limitation provided for a suit for declaration though was six years from the accrual of
cause of action, but every subsequent invasion on the rights of plaintiff afforded her fresh cause of action for
the institution of suit---Subsequent alienations of property enumerated in the plaint by the original transferee
took place within a period of six years from the institution of suit and as such the Court had to take that into
consideration while determining the plea of limitation regarding the prayer of the plaintiff for declaration---
Plaintiff had also prayed for joint possession for which period of limitation prescribed was twelve years which
commenced from the time when. the possession of the defendant became adverse---Court had also to
determine whether any prayer for cancellation of mutation of sale was at all necessary--Determination of age
of the plaintiff was also necessary for the decision of the point of limitation---Trial Court, held, was perfectly
justified in declining to reject the plaint summarily without proper evidence in circumstances.
Side Appellant : MIR SAHIB JAN
Side Opponent : JANAN
Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. vii , R.11 ---Suit for declaration, possession,
injunction and cancellation of fresh sale agreement---Dismissal of previous/first suit based on another
agreement upheld upto Supreme Court---Rejection of plaint in second suit, application for---Defendant's plea
was that plaintiff in second suit and earlier suit was not same person; and that second suit was not maintainable
in view of previous litigation on same subject---Validity---Cause of action in second suit was based on a fresh
agreement---Questions requiring determination were as to whether second suit had any nexus with first suit,
and whether plaintiff was same person, who had been contesting previous proceedings---Such questions being
questions of fact could adequately be resolved by granting opportunity to parties of producing evidence after
framing necessary issues.
---Principles.
---Principles.
Side Appellant : Q.B.E. INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD
Side Opponent : JAFFAR FLOUR AND OIL MILLS LTD
O. vii , R.11 ---Rejection of plaint, application for---Defendant's plea was that issue involved in suit had
already been decided in earlier litigation in terms of compromise---Plaintiff denied such plea---Validity---
Plaint had been entertained on basis of whatever cause of action had been mentioned therein---parties were at
variance on question of earlier litigation ending with compromise---Such question could be settled only after
framing of issues and recording of evidence ---Application was rejected in circumstances.
--Ss. 12 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. vii , R.11 ---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Cause of
action---During pendency of suit before Trial Court, plaintiffs filed application for amendment of plaint and
defendants filed application for rejection of plaint for having no cause of action---Trial Court dismissed the
application filed by defendants and allowed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint---Appellate Court, in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court and rejected the plaint---Such order of
Appellate Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Where cause of action was disclosed in the plaint,
plaintiff had a right to have a fair trial of his case, to produce evidence and to have a judicial opinion of a Court
on merits of his cause---Plaint could only be rejected when the averments made therein, if accepted, did not
entitle plaintiff to a relief---If there was no room for any other possible approach to the case and no triable
issue was made same was liable to be rejected under O. vii, R.11 , C.P.C.---Court had to presume that every
averment made in the plaint was true, therefore, power to reject the plaint under O. vii , R.11 C.P.C. , must be
exercised only if the Court had come to the conclusion that even if all the allegations were proved, the plaintiff
would not be entitled to any relief---Power to reject the plaint should not be exercised except in a clear case---
Trial Court was justified to dismiss the application of defendants, under O. vii , R.11 C.P.C. whereas the
revisional Court and High Court erred in law to reverse the same without adverting to the real controversy
between the parties ---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the orders
Side Appellant : ARBAB JEHANGIR KHAN and others
Side Opponent : INAYATULLAH KHAN
---Paras. 13 & 26---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & O. vii , R. 11--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art. 185(3) --- Surrender of Shamilat Land under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.11 5)---Suit
challenging validity of surrender---Rejection of plaint pursuant to bar of jurisdiction in para.26 of the
Regulation---Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider questions that under what conditions and with
special reference to para. 13 of M.L.R. 115, civil Court does or does not have jurisdiction whether provisions
of O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. were invoked by Courts below under genuine circumstances and was recording of
evidence necessary even for determination of question of jurisdiction; and what was the nature of title and
possession of suit-land at the time of surrender and who among the parties was justified to surrender and with
what effect.
Side Appellant : TABASSAM NAZIR
Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD
Specific Relief Act 1877 S. 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---
Suit for declaration of rights of inheritance ---Averments trade in the plaint and material brought on record by
plaintiffs had made out a case for further proceedings with the plaint/suit, initial onus to prove fraud etc.
having been perpetuated by any side in relation to the civil rights of citizens, remained on the plaintiff/party
alleging such a state of affairs; snapping of the tie which made a litigation qualified for being proceeded with
for trial in relation to the respective rights of inheritance of people similarly placed as private parties , could
riot be countenanced in law and question with regard to the suit being barred by time or not also required
production of evidence by the parties in the suit---Remedy---Pleadings of the parties should have been attended
to in accordance with the normal procedure relating to trial of suits/disputes after full dressed arguments in line
with the oral and documentary evidence brought on the record---Such having ,not been done and the entire
litigation having taken a different turn after the submission of their written statements by the defendants in the
case, the defendant side made an application under (.vii , R.11 , C.P.C. and the same was taker: upon alongside
the earlier application of the plaintiff side under O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C. P. C. and S. 151, C. P. C.---Lot of
time was consumed in having the dispute resolved. at the interim stage by the Trial Court, the
appellate/revisional forum and the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction---Supreme Court, in
circumstances, converted the petition for leave to appeal, allowed the same and remanded the matter to the
Trial Court for its hearing after framing appropriate issues and allowing opportunity to the parties to lead
whatever evidence they wanted to in the cause.
Side Appellant : GHULAM NABI
Side Opponent : FAQIR MUHAMMAD
West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 ----S. 2-A---Civil Procedure Code (V of
1908),O. vii , R.11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Custom Punjab)---Rejection of plaint-
Validity---Last male-holder died on 6-2-1917; his only son had predeceased him---Predeceased son of last
male-holder had two sons. one of which was dead when mutation was sanctioned where under 1/2 share was
mutated in favour of grandson and the other half in favour of widow of other grandson---Predeceased grandson
had left behind one daughter who got nothing out of his property--Widow of predeceased grandson of last
male-holder died on 18-3-1923 and on her death mutation was entered in the name of surviving grandson of
last male holder who, thus, became owner of the whole property left behind by his grandfather---Daughter of
predeceased grandson of last male-holder got no share from the property of her father even after death of her
mother who was holding the estate as limited owner---Heirs of daughter brought suit to claim share of their
mother---Defendants who had inherited the whole estate of last male-holder as heirs of his surviving grandson
applied for rejection of plaint---Trial Court dismissed such application but High court in revisional jurisdiction.
rejected plaint---Validity---Petitioners contended that rejection of plaint in terms of O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. was
totally uncalled, for questions raised in suit required examination of evidence in order to establish, whether on
death of limited owner property in question was inherited by surviving grandson of last male-holder to the
exclusion of other heirs---Respondents on the other hand contended that entry in register of mutations was
partly based on mistake for at the time entry was being made in favour of surviving grandson of last male-
holder, daughter of deceased grandson was alive, therefore, dispute in question. related. to inheritance on
demise of limited owner---Contentions raised by parties required deeper examination---Leave to appeal was
granted to consider whether rejection. of plaint by High Court under O.vii . R.11 C P.C. was justified in
circumstances.
Side Appellant : ABDUL AZIZ
Side Opponent : SAINAN BIBI ALIAS HUSSAINA BIBI
Civil Procedure Code --Order vii of C.P.C. Plaint ----O. vii , R.11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185-
--Rejection of plaint ---Validity---Net prof its-table produced by plaintiff did not relate to relevant period i.e.
Kharif 1978 and Rabi 1979, but pertained to Kharif 1977 and Rabi 1978, therefore, same could not have been
accepted for purpose of determining amount of court-fee---Plaintiff's plaint, however, could not have been
rejected, for Court was obliged to grant plaintiff time for payment of proper court-fee---Judgments and decrees
of Courts below rejecting plaint were, thus, set aside and case remanded to First Appellate Court for deciding
appeal afresh---parties were to be allowed to lead evidence on question of net prof its of relevant years.
Side Appellant : KARIM BIBI
Side Opponent : ZUBAIR
Civil Procedure Code --Order vii of C.P.C. Plaint ----O. vii , R.11 ---Rejection of plaint---Validity---None of
the grounds mentioned in O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C. existed to non-suit plaintiff---Plaintiffs' evidence had already
been recorded so also part of defendant's evidence was on record---parties were seriously at issue---Court
instead of rejecting plaint could decide the dispute by referring to the evidence ---Order of rejection of plaint
was not warranted in circumstances.
Side Appellant : MISKIN
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANSEHRA
Civil Procedure Code --Order vii of C.P.C. Plaint ----O. vii , R.11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.
185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider: whether the Courts below were not
competent to reject the plaint without adverting to the mandate given to them under O. vii , R.11 , C.P.C.
inasmuch as the ingredients mentioned therein were not attracted to the case in hand.
FACTS IN BRIEF
In the instant case, Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, the Appellant i.e. Surinder Kumar Khanna was convicted along with other co-accused
persons for illegally shipping commercial quantities of a narcotic drug, namely, Heroine, in India
and also for abetting and conspiring in such crime, under Section 21 (c) and Section 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘NDPS Act’) respectively.
The conviction of the Appellant by the Trial Court was solely based upon the statements recorded
by the co-accused persons and there was nothing else on the record to indicate the involvement of
the Appellant in commission of the crime indicated hereinabove. Adopting such reasoning, the
High Court also affirmed the conviction of the Appellant.
The matter traversed the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the State/Prosecution placed on record
the Call Data Reports (CDR) of the Appellants to indicate that around the time when the co-
accused persons were getting arrested, the Appellant was in touch with some person from Dubai.
Basically, apart from the statements of the co-accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act, there was nothing to link the Appellant with the co-accused persons.
LEGAL POSITION AND JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that whether statement recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act can be construed as a confessional statement even if the officer who recorded such
statement was not to be treated as a police officer, has now been referred to a larger Bench
(Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 16 SCC 417) along with an incidental question that
whether such a statement is to be treated as statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. or it
partakes the character of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Despite the fact that the abovementioned questions have not yet been decided, the Court went on
to opine that even if a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS is considered to be a confessional
statement, then also there is nothing in the scheme of the NDPS Act to suggest that such
confession could be used as a piece of substantive evidence against the co-accused. In absence of
the same and considering its earlier judgments, the Court conclusively observed that except in
cases where there is a specific provision in law making such confession of a co-accused admissible
against another accused, a confession cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence
against a co-accused person. Thus, on account of lack of substantive evidence against the
Appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the Appellant of the charges levelled against
him.
COMMENTS
In my humble opinion, this Judgment reaffirms the adage that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Without existence of substantive evidence, today, a lot of Courts are convicting individuals merely
on the pretext that more convictions will lead to deterrence in the minds of the criminals to
commit crime and will lead to a crime-free society. I think such a reasoning is completely baseless
and flawed. It is not the role of Judges or the Courts to indulge into policing of the society. Let
that job remain with the Executive. The Courts do not exist to control the society but to
adjudicate disputes and interpret the law, as and when required. This is a welcome Judgment and
it should set a precedent for the Judiciary to not to become conviction-minded for the sake of
achieving some utopian goal.

LEGAL REASOING OF ORDER VII, RULE 11 CPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL REASOING OF ORDER VII, RULE 11 CPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL REASOING OF ORDER VII, RULE 11 CPC - REJECTION OF PLAINT

The aim of order 7 rule 11

REJECTION OF THE PLAINT (RULE 11):

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

GROUNDS FOR THE REJECTION OF THE PLAINT:

 Where plaint does not disclose the cause of action

 Where relief claimed is undervalued

 Where the plaint is insufficiently stamped

 Where the suit is barred by law

 Where the plaint is not in duplicate.

The plaint must be in compliance with Rule 9.

THE REAL OBJECT OF RULE 11:

PROCEDURE FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT (RULE 12):

[1] (2004) 3 SCC 137.

[2] (2007) 10 SCC 59

[3] (2015) 5 SCC 732

The Advisor's Law Firm

LEGAL POSITION AND JUDGMENT

You might also like