Court Can Suo Motu Reject A Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a Court has power to reject a plaint suo motu invoking its powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court has to hear the plaintiff before it invokes this power, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy added, noticing that Order VII Rule 11 does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint only on an application.

The bench made these observations in its judgment holding that Section 12A of the the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory and that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. Section 12A deals with pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement. It provides that 'a suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.' 

"In a clear case, where on allegations in the suit, it is found that the suit is barred by any law, as would be the case, where the plaintiff in a suit under the Act does not plead circumstances to take his case out of the requirement of Section 12A, the plaint should be rejected without issuing summons", the court held in this context.

One of the issues which arose in this case was whether the power under Order VII Rule 11 is to be exercised only on an application by the defendant and the stage at which it can be exercised?

In this regard, the bench noted the observations made in Patasibai and Others v. Ratanlal (1990) 2 SCC 42. It observed:

(A) A suit is commenced by presentation of a plaint. The date of the presentation in terms of Section 3(2) of the Limitation Act is the date of presentation for the purpose of the said Act. By virtue of Order IV Rule 1 (3), institution of the plaint, however, is complete only when the plaint is in conformity with the requirement of Order VI and Order VII.

(B) When the court decides the question as to issue of summons under Order V Rule 1, what the court must consider is whether a suit has been duly instituted.

(C) Order VII Rule 11 does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint only on an application. Order VII Rule 11 is, in fact, silent about any such requirement. Since summon is to be issued in a duly instituted suit, in a case where the plaint is barred under Order VII Rule 11(d), the stage begins at that time when the court can reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. No doubt it would take a clear case where the court is satisfied. The Court has to hear the plaintiff before it invokes its power besides giving reasons under Order VII Rule 12. In a clear case, where on allegations in the suit, it is found that the suit is barred by any law, as would be the case, where the plaintiff in a suit under the Act does not plead circumstances to take his case out of the requirement of Section 12A, the plaint should be rejected without issuing summons. Undoubtedly, on issuing summons it will be always open to the defendant to make an application as well under Order VII Rule 11. In other words, the power under Order VII Rule 11 is available to the court to be exercised suo motu.

The court also referred to the judgment in Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy (2018) 14 SCC 1.