“A Plaint Can Never Be Rejected for Non-Existence of Cause of Action”: Orissa High Court Dismisses Civil Revision Against Trial Court’s Rejection of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Application
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Orissa SIngle Bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected for non-existence of cause of action but only for non-disclosure thereof. Affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court concluded that the averments in the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action, rendering the revision petition devoid of merit.
The revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by the petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant No.3 in Civil Suit No.169 of 2023 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, plaintiffs in the original suit, had filed the said suit seeking a declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, and permanent injunction. The cause of action was stated in paragraph 16 of the plaint.
In the said suit, the petitioner (defendant No.3) filed a petition dated 5 January 2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit lacked a cause of action. According to the petitioner, the suit was not maintainable since it was allegedly devoid of any factual foundation necessary for invocation of judicial remedy.
The plaintiffs (opposite parties Nos.1 and 2) filed their objections denying the contentions raised by the petitioner and opposing the plea for rejection of the plaint. They submitted that the averments in the plaint adequately disclosed the cause of action justifying the continuation of the suit.
After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by order dated 13 March 2024. The trial court held that since the averments in the plaint disclosed a cause of action, rejection of the plaint was not warranted.
Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner (defendant No.3) filed the present civil revision petition before the High Court challenging the trial court’s order. The petitioner reiterated the stand that the plaint did not present a valid cause of action, and hence, was liable to be rejected at the threshold.
The matter was heard on 17 March 2025. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court erred in not appreciating the absence of cause of action, as reflected in the contents of the plaint. He urged that the trial court should have allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit for want of maintainability.
On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties supported the trial court’s decision, maintaining that the cause of action was clearly set out in the plaint, particularly in paragraph 16. It was submitted that the petitioner had mischaracterized the legal principles by conflating non-disclosure and non-existence of cause of action.
The Court took note of the submissions and examined the legal issue of whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for the alleged non-existence of cause of action. The issue before the Court was whether such a ground, as advanced by the petitioner, fell within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Justice Ananda Chandra Behera began the eamination by referring to the specific plea taken by the petitioner in paragraph 10 and 11 of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court recorded: “It appears from Para Nos.10 and 11 of the petition dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. of the petitioner (defendant No.3) that, he (petitioner) had filed such petition for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs, on the ground that, there no cause of action i.e. non-existence of cause of action in the plaint of the plaintiffs for filing the suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023.”
The Court posed the central legal question in the following terms: “Now, it is to be seen, whether the above ground raised by the defendant No.3 (petitioner in this revision) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 on the ground of non-existence of cause of action in the plaint of the plaintiff is entertainable under law?”
Explaining the settled legal principles, the Court stated: “Whether, a plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact.” It further elaborated: “So, whether, cause of action does or does not exist in the plaint of the plaintiffs must be found from the readings of the plaint itself.”
The Court drew a clear distinction between non-existence and non-disclosure of cause of action. It stated: “It is the settled propositions of law that, a plaint can never be rejected for non-existence of cause of action, but, a plaint can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action.”
This was further clarified: “There is distinction between non-disclosure of cause of action and non-existence of cause of action.” The Court noted: “So, non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, whereas, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint.”
The Court referred to three authoritative decisions:
- “In a case between Dahiben Vrs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. LRs. & Others reported in 2021 (1) Civ.C.C. 210 (SC) that, whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact, but, whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself.”
- “In a case between Kishore Kumar Vrs. Ishar Dass reported in 2024 (4) CCC 123 (J & K) that, there is distinction between ‘non-disclosure of cause of action’ and ‘non-existence of cause of action’. Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint.”
- “In a case between Jageshwari Devi & Others Vrs. Shatrughan Ram reported in 2007 (15) SCC 52 that, there is distinction between ‘non-disclosure of cause of action’ and ‘non-existence of cause of action’. Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint.”
In light of the above principles, the Court examined the contents of the plaint and found that the cause of action was adequately stated. It recorded: “When, in the petition dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, 1908, the defendant No.3 (petitioner in this revision) had prayed for rejection of plaint of the plaintiffs on ground of non-existence of cause of action stating in his petition that, the plaint of the plaintiffs is without cause of action and when according to him (petitioner), there is no cause of action in the plaint of the plaintiffs, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the petition dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant No.3 (petitioner in this revision) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 on the ground of non-existence of cause of action was/is not entertainable under law.”
The Court concluded: “Because, the averments made in Para No.16 of the plaint of the plaintiffs are clearly and unambiguously disclosing cause of action for filing of the suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 by the plaintiffs against the defendants including the petitioner in this revision.”
The Court upheld the trial court’s decision and held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It stated: “Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the trial court in C.S. No.169 of 2023 rejecting the petition dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant No.3 (petitioner in this revision) cannot be held erroneous.”
Accordingly, the Court held that: “The question of interfering with the same through this revision filed by the petitioner (defendant No.3) does not arise.”
It concluded the matter by stating: “As such, there is no merit in the revision of the petitioner. The same must fail.”
Finally, the Court declared: “In result, the revision filed by the petitioner (defendant No.3 in the suit) is dismissed on contest, but, without cost.”
“Accordingly, the revision is disposed of finally.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. B. Baug, Advocate
Case Title: Niharkanti Mishra v. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik & Others
Case Number: C.R.P. No. 19 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ananda Chandra Behera
[Read/Download order]
