Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Inconsistencies In Plaint Averments Not A Sufficient Reason To Reject Plaint : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because there are some inconsistent averments in the plaint. For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal...
The Supreme Court observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because there are some inconsistent averments in the plaint.
For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed.
In this case, the plaintiffs filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bangalore claiming a declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Allowing the application filed by the defendants, the plaint was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. This order was upheld by the High Court.
In appeal before the Apex Court, it was contended that the Courts have gone into the question of correctness of the averments made in the plaint by pointing out inconsistent statements made in the plaint.
In this regard, the bench observed:
"For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into. When the ground pleaded for rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint."
The court noted that the Trial Court and the High Court have gone into the question of correctness of the averments made in the plaint by pointing out inconsistent statements made in the plaint.
"After having perused the plaint and in particular paragraphs 16 and 17, we find that the cause of action for filing the suit has been pleaded in some detail. It is pleaded how the first appellant acquired title to the property. The facts constituting alleged cause of action have been also incorporated in paragraph 17.We are of the view that merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. The question was whether the plaint discloses cause of action. As observed earlier, the plaint does disclose cause of action. Whether the appellants will ultimately succeed or not is another matter.", the court observed while allowing appeal and restoring the suit.
Case details
G. NAGARAJ vs B.P. MRUTHUNJAYANNA | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311 | CA 2737 OF 2023 | 11 April 2023 | Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal
Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order VII Rule 11 - For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into. When the ground pleaded for rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint - Merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. The question was whether the plaint discloses cause of action. (Para 6-9)