Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, held that rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not a routine procedural formality but an exceptional departure reserved for pleadings that, by their own shortcomings, warrant termination at the outset. Stating the need for careful judicial scrutiny in such matters, the Court found that the plaintiff had not established any legal basis connecting him to the disputed property, rendering his challenge to multiple gift deeds and powers of attorney unsustainable. As the plaint disclosed neither a right to sue nor a cognizable cause of action, the Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the suit and dismissed the appeal.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant seeking declarations concerning a residential property situated at Talab Tillo, Jammu. The plaintiff challenged multiple documents relating to the property, including several gift deeds and powers of attorney executed over different years among family members and other individuals. He also sought restoration of possession from one of the defendants and requested that any subsequently executed documents concerning the property be treated as part of the dispute. Two individuals were arrayed as contesting defendants, while two relatives of the plaintiff were named as proforma defendants.

Also Read: Pendency Of Writ Does Not Relieve Litigants Of Statutory Remedies: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal On Property Auction Challenge Under Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act

In his pleadings, the plaintiff asserted that prior transfers of the property were fraudulent and legally ineffective. He alleged that certain gift deeds were executed without valid authority and that the persons executing them lacked title or the right to transfer. The plaintiff also claimed that earlier powers of attorney were invalid and alleged concealment of relevant documents.

The trial court examined the plaint to determine whether it disclosed any legal basis establishing the plaintiff’s connection to the suit property. No supporting material or factual assertion was presented to show how the plaintiff derived any right, title, or interest in the property. The suit was filed invoking provisions concerning declarations, injunctions, and the validity of property transfers, and relied on the procedural framework governing rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court recorded that it examined the plaint “labouring to figure out as to how the appellant/plaintiff is to be reckoned to be in a legal status quo the suit property so as to earn right to sue with respect to the documents being assailed in the suit and thereby seek the consequential relief of restoration of possession of the suit property from the defendant No. 4.” It stated that “Entire reading of the plaint inside out nowhere comes up with a single line whisper as to how the appellant/plaintiff is to be reckoned as owner/claimant of the suit property.”

The Court observed that the appellant “is lost in his own jugglery of averments by purportedly relating the suit property to his father-proforma defendant No. 2 and also to his deceased uncle… but not to himself and still suing for it.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Raj Narain Sarin, the Court stated that “the court should be rather hesitant to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11… unless the factual score warrants such an exercise and the matter in issue falls within the four corners of the requirement of the statute.” It recorded that ““Rejection of a plaint, however, is a sort of digression of that nature of adjudication of a civil suit and as such, such a digression is not to be served to a civil suit unless and until a plaint is self-inviting the same for its rejection. This is what is essence of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is”.

The Court also quoted the principle that under Order VII Rule 11, “the court has to take a decision looking at the pleadings of the plaintiff only to the total exclusion of the rebuttal made by the defendant or any other materials produced by the defendant.”

Regarding cause of action, the Court stated: “The understanding of expression of ‘cause of action’ needs to born in mind conceptually… lest the provision is left being applied or not applied in misconceived manner.” It quoted the Supreme Court in Dahiben, noting that Order VII Rule 11 is “an independent and special remedy wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold.”

Also Read: Taunts Over Childlessness And Marital Discord Not Abetment To Suicide; Contemporary Women Are More Resilient: J&K&L High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband And In-Laws

The Court further recorded: “Right to sue is an essential ingredient of cause of action. If there is no right to sue, there cannot be a disclosure of a cause of action.” After reviewing the plaint, it stated that the trial court’s action was consistent with this principle.

The Court stated: “Bearing in mind the position of law, factual as well as legal, as set out hereinbefore, this Court is in full agreement with the order dated 02.08.2021… whereby the suit has been rejected by application of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As such, the present appeal is dismissed along with all connected matters.”

“Disposed of accordingly.” The detailed judgment followed the earlier order dated 04.07.2024, “vide which the appeal was ordered to be dismissed as hereby being done.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Bandral, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Parihar, Advocate

Case Title: Sunil Singh v. Krishan Lal Gupta & Others
Neutral Citation: 2024:JKLHC-JMU:1910
Case Number: RFA No. 20/2021
Bench: Justice Rahul Bharti