Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can Be Rejected For 'Non-Disclosure', Not For 'Non-Existence' Of Cause of Action: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for mere 'non-existence' of cause of action, rather it can be rejected for 'non-disclosure' of the same. Reaffirming the settled principle of law, the Single Bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera observed –

“So, non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, whereas, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint.”

Case Background

A suit was filed by the plaintiffs (the opposite parties herein) against the defendants (including the petitioner) praying for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds and for permanent injunction, stating about the accrual of its cause of action in their plaint.

The petitioner herein (Defendant No.3 in the suit) filed a petition on January 05, 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit of the plaintiffs is bereft of any cause of action and as such there is no ground to sustain the proceedings in the suit. The plaintiffs (opposite parties herein) objected to the same by filing their objection denying the claim of the petitioner.

The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, after hearing both the sides, rejected such petition on March 13, 2024 holding that when the averments in the plaint are disclosing the cause of action, the question of rejection of their plaint does not arise. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the petition, the petitioner filed this revision petition before the High Court by invoking Section 115 of the CPC.

Court's Observations

The sole question which arose for consideration was whether the above ground, i.e. 'non-existence' of cause of action, raised by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs is sustainable in the eyes of law.

The Court said, whether a plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. Therefore, the existence of cause of action in the plaint must be deciphered from the readings of the plaint itself. It further categorically held that a plaint can never be rejected for non-existence of cause of action, but it can be rejected for non-disclosure thereof.

Justice Behera underlined that there is a distinction between 'non-disclosure of cause of action' and 'non-existence of cause of action'. A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC basing upon the former ground but not on the latter ground.

To substantiate the above settled position of law, the Judge referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Jageshwari Devi & Ors. v. Shatrughan Ram and judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court in Kishore Kumar v. Ishar Dass, 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 250 which commonly held that non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, but same is not the case with non-existence of cause of action.

In the present case, the Court held, the averments made in Para No.16 of the plaint of the are clearly and unambiguously disclosing cause of action for filing of the suit. Therefore, it was of the view that plea of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint for non-existence of cause of action cannot be entertained.

Accordingly, the civil revision petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the trial Court.

Case Title: Niharkanti Mishra v. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik & Ors.

Case No: C.R.P. No. 19 of 2024

Date of Judgment: April 03, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. B. Baug, Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 62

Click Here To Read/Download Order