The Supreme Court has directed trial courts to maintain a separate record of plaints rejected before registration under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court clarified that although a plaint can be rejected even before registration, such rejection must be properly documented under Order IV Rule 2 CPC to ensure that an official record remains available.
Background
The case arose from a property dispute in which the plaintiff, G. Pazhanivel, claimed ownership of a property transferred to him by his son through a registered settlement deed dated February 26, 2021.
According to the plaintiff, he borrowed ₹25 lakh from the respondent's husband and executed a sale deed dated March 15, 2021, in the respondent's favour as security for the loan. He claimed that possession of the property remained with him and that the respondent subsequently refused to reconvey the property despite his willingness to repay the borrowed amount with interest.
The plaintiff approached the civil court seeking a declaration of ownership, redemption of the mortgage, permanent injunction and reconveyance of the property.
However, the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, rejected the plaint before registering the suit, observing that the sale deed contained no provision for resale and that no separate agreement supporting reconveyance had been produced. The Madras High Court upheld the decision, prompting the plaintiff to approach the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar examined whether the plaint could have been rejected without properly considering its entire contents.
The Court clarified that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised at any stage, including before registration of a plaint. However, the court must examine whether the specific grounds for rejection under the provision are actually satisfied.
The bench observed:
"On a meaningful reading of the entire plaint, it is evident that the same discloses a cause of action. The suit does not appear from any statement made in the plaint that it is barred by law."
The Supreme Court further pointed out that the trial court had failed to consider all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and had focused primarily on the absence of a resale clause in the sale deed.
Emphasising the importance of examining the plaint as a whole, the Court stated:
"Likelihood of a suit being dismissed after trial does not furnish a ground for the Court to reject the plaint prior to the trial."
The Court also addressed the procedural requirement of maintaining records when a plaint is rejected before registration.
It explained that rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) CPC. Therefore, maintaining records is necessary, particularly when such rejection is challenged in an appeal or becomes relevant in subsequent proceedings.
The bench directed:
"Whenever the trial Court rejects a plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code prior to registration of the plaint, the fact that such plaint stands rejected shall be duly recorded in a register maintained for such purpose under Order IV Rule 2 of the Code."
The Court further stated that High Courts may take appropriate steps under Section 122 CPC if the existing Civil Manuals or applicable rules do not provide for such a register.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, and the Madras High Court.
It restored the plaint for registration and directed that the suit be decided in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: G. Pazhanivel v. S. Thilagavathy
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13154 of 2026
Judges: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: November 5, 2026
