Defendant Can Seek Rejection Of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11-D CPC Without Filing Written Statement: Jharkhand High Court

While hearing a title dispute over a property, the Jharkhand High Court said that once a suit is instituted and notice is issued, the defendant has the right to file an application under Order 7 Rule 11-D of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, even if a written statement has not been filed.

In doing so, the high court found that the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's plea for rejection of the respondent's plaint was wrong on both facts and law. 

A single judge bench of Justice Subhash Chand, in its order stated, “Once the suit has been instituted and the same has been registered and notice has been issued to the defendant, the defendant has right to move the application under Order 7 Rule 11-D of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint even without filing the written statement.”

The order was passed in a plea filed by the petitioner-defendants challenging an order of the Civil Judge Bokaro, which rejected their application under Order 7 Rule 11-D CPC seeking rejection of the respondent's plaint. 

The respondent-plaintiff one Gour Baran Ojha, initiated a suit against petitioner defendants Jyotshna Mishra and Sujit Kumar Mishra, seeking a declaration of his title to the property based on adverse possession. Along with this primary relief, the respondent-plaintiff  sought two additional remedies. The suit was registered by the trial court, which also called for a report from the Sirestedar (administrative officer). 

After the petitioner-defendants submitted their written statement, they filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11-D C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint, which was rejected by the trial court.

Before the high court the counsel for petitioner-defendants argued that the suit for a declaration of title based on adverse possession and for an injunction was duly instituted by the respondent-plaintiff and registered by the trial court. However, the court below rejected the petitioner's Order 7 Rule 11-D CPC application stating that the suit had not yet been admitted, which rendered the application as not maintainable.

Perusing the trial court's order, the High Court found that the petitioners' Order 7 Rule 11D CPC application had not been decided by the trial court on its merits. Rather, the high court said, the application was termed "not maintainable" on the ground that the "suit has not been admitted". 

"But in this case the written statement has already been filed on behalf of the defendant and the application under Order 7 Rule 11-D of C.P.C. was very much maintainable," the high court emphasized. 

The High Court highlighted that the reasoning provided by the lower court was contrary to both "fact and law" regarding the maintainability of the petitioners' application.

“As such the impugned order passed by the learned court-below bears infirmity and same needs interference. Accordingly, this C.M.P. deserves to be allowed,” the Court concluded while allowing the petition and setting aside the trial court order. 

Case Title: Smt. Jyotshna Mishra and Anr vs Gour Baran Ojha

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 163

Click Here To Read Judgement