The Delhi High Court has clarified that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), documents filed along with the plaint can be examined to determine whether it discloses a 'cause of action.'
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC allows the court to reject a plaint on specific grounds, including the absence of a 'cause of action.' However, Justice Ravinder Dudeja emphasized that the plaint cannot be viewed in isolation. Instead, documents filed alongside it should also be considered to assess whether a 'cause of action' exists.
Read also: Delhi High Court Adjourns Appeal Against Service Charge Ruling, Will Hear on May 23
Justice Dudeja stated:
"It may be true that Order 7 Rule 11 even though authorizes the Court to reject a plaint on failure on the part of the plaintiff to disclose a cause of action, but the same would not mean that the averments made therein or a document upon which reliance has been placed although discloses a cause of action, the plaint would still be rejected."
Case Background
- The matter arose from a petition against a district court order rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the Petitioner (defendant).
- The Respondent (plaintiff) had filed a suit for recovery of money, claiming it provided logistic services to the Petitioner, but payments were not made.
- The Petitioner argued that the plaint lacked material particulars and did not disclose a valid cause of action.
- The Petitioner contended that only the averments in the plaint should be considered for determining the 'cause of action,' excluding other documents.
- The Respondent maintained that the plaint, along with supporting documents (ledger account, bills, etc.), provided complete details of the transaction.
The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success & Another (2004), which established that a plaint should not be rejected if the averments or documents disclose a 'cause of action.'
The Court also referred to Inspiration Clothes & U Vs. Colby International Limited (2000), where it was held that documents accompanying the plaint can be examined to ascertain the existence of a 'cause of action.'
Read also: Delhi High Court Closes Hamdard's Suit After Ramdev Removes "Sharbat Jihad" Remark Videos
The High Court observed:
"The plaint is not to be looked in isolation distinct from the documents relied upon with the plaint. Since the respondent has placed on record all the relevant documents, it cannot be said that plaint does not disclose the cause of action."
Appearance: Mr. R. K. Trakru, Adv for Petitioner; Mr. Kamal Gupta & Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advs for Respondent
Case title: Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd
Case no.: CM(M) 147/2024
