Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Existence Of Cause Of Action Cannot Be Equated With Merits Of Suit Filed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that existence of the cause of action cannot be equated with the merits of the suit filed.

Justice Asha Menon was dealing with an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 read with sec. 151 of CPC on behalf of the defendants in a suit seeking rejection of the plaint.

The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 crores, by the plaintiff, daughter-in-law of the defendants. Her case was that the defendants had, by their words and actions, including a press-conference addressed by them, openly accused her of being guilty of and conniving and conspiring to have her husband murdered.

On account of the wide publicity of the said statement, including in the print media, the plaintiff had submitted that her reputation had been shattered and being a businesswoman, was also maligned through wrongful impressions being created not only with the general public, but also with her business associates.

The defendants, on the other hand, had contended that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and since the defendants had only one thought in their mind, which was the apprehension of the true murderer of their one and only son and that malice could not be attributed to them and therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

It was argued by the applicants/ defendants that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the cause of action had not arisen in Delhi and that the interview was given in Faridabad, Haryana. It was also argued that no details of the URLs were given and in any case, the uploading of the video was never done at the instance of the defendants.

On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the Court had jurisdiction vested in it under sec. 19 and 20 of the CPC. It was also submitted that the plaintiff resided in Delhi and the impact on her reputation was suffered by her at Delhi, as a consequence of the statements of the defendants.

Noting that the application sought rejection alone, the Court said:

"In the circumstances, considering that the nature of relief under both provisions are different from each other, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the instant application only as one under Order VII Rule 11 CPC i.e., whether or not the suit has to be rejected on any of the grounds mentioned thereunder."

The Court was of the view that in cases, the Apex Court and the High Courts have held that while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court can only consider the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon by the plaintiff. However, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant.

"If, on a demurer, a cause of action is disclosed or the averments appear to be such that none of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are found applicable, there can be no question of the rejection of the plaint," the Court said.

The Court said that a perusal of the application revealed the frivolous nature of the application. It added that while claiming that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, the defendants pleaded justification, lack of malice, privilege, freedom of speech and fair comment, as the grounds for rejection.

"Clearly, these are the defences that are normally raised by defendants to a suit for damages on account of defamatory and slanderous words having been allegedly used by the defendants. The contentions that the plaintiff has not justified how she has claimed Rs.5 crores, is again extraneous to the determination of whether the plaint is to be rejected," the Court said.

It added "The existence of the cause of action cannot be equated with the merits of the suit filed. It will be only after trial and on evidence produced that it could be determined whether the defendants were justified in making the statements they did to the media, whether there was any privilege involved in it and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages of at least Rs.5 crores, as claimed. These are all questions of fact and require evidence to be adduced during trial."

Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000.

Case Title: MANSI GUPTA v. PREM AMAR & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 304

Click Here To Read Order