The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a plaint cannot be dismissed in its entirety under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) just because one of the reliefs claimed is legally unsustainable. If the plaint also contains another maintainable relief that arises from a distinct cause of action, it must be considered.

The case was heard by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The dispute arose when the appellant purchased agricultural land and later borrowed ₹7.5 crore from the respondent. The appellant executed two unregistered documents—an agreement to sell and a power of attorney giving the respondent authority to sell the land. The appellant later revoked both documents, but the respondent still executed registered sale deeds in July 2022, transferring the land to himself and others.

Read also: SC Collegium Recommends New Chief Justices for Five High Courts

In response, the appellant filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the sale deeds were void, and also asked for possession and an injunction. However, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the suit entirely, reasoning that the first relief (the declaration) was invalid. The High Court did not examine the second relief (possession and injunction), treating the entire plaint as a single claim.

Challenging this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court failed to consider the triable issue arising from the respondent’s execution of the sale deeds after revocation of the power of attorney.

Read also: Centre Appoints 7 Advocates as High Court Judges Across India

Setting aside the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court held:

“The High Court's wholesale rejection of the plaint, without appreciating that the reliefs claimed flowed from multiple and distinct causes of action – particularly one arising after the revocation of the power of attorney – amounts to an improper application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Selective severance of reliefs is impermissible where different causes of action are independently pleaded and supported by distinct facts.”

The Court clarified that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if, on its face, it does not disclose any cause of action, is barred by law, or suffers from issues like under-valuation or insufficient court fees. The examination must be limited strictly to the pleadings in the plaint, without considering the defendant’s case. If the plaint reveals even one triable issue, it cannot be summarily dismissed.

Supporting this position, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain, SC 96, which held:

“If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B.”

Finally, the Court concluded:

“The position of law is that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only when the plaint, on its face and without considering the defence, fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by any law, is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected.”

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision.

Case Title: VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD. VERSUS MAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Aryaman Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apurv Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Chander, Adv. Mr. Yash Johri, Adv. Mr. Saransh Vij, Adv. Mr. Gurdeep Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Barnali Basak, Adv. Ms. Mahak Dua, Adv. Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR