The presentation of a plaint, i.e. the pleading of the plaintiff in a suit; marks the institution of a civil suit. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides for the remedy of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, on certain specifically states grounds. Order VII Rule 11 provides: “Court shall reject a plaint.

In Indian law, the rejection of a plaint refers to the dismissal of a case at its initial stage, i.e., before it goes to trial. The court can reject a plaint if it does not comply with the procedural requirements or if it fails to disclose a cause of action.

The main provisions dealing with the rejection of plaint is Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These provisions provide the grounds for rejecting a plaint and the procedure for doing so.

the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

a) If it does not disclose a cause of action;

b) If the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

c) If the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

d) If the plaint is not filed in the proper court;

e) If the suit is instituted against the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court may reject the plaint if it appears from the statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by any law.

1.  One of the important case laws regarding the rejection of plaint is the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a plaint can be rejected only if the averments in the plaint, taken as a whole, do not disclose a cause of action. The court further observed that the test to determine whether a cause of action has been disclosed is whether, if the allegations made in the plaint are proved, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief claimed.
2. In another landmark case, Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the rejection of a plaint is a drastic action and should be resorted to only in clear cases where the plaint is vexatious, meritless, or instituted with an ulterior motive. The court further observed that the power to reject a plaint should be exercised cautiously and sparingly.
3. Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi: In this case, the Delhi High Court held that the power to reject a plaint is discretionary and should be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness. The court also noted that the plaintiff should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the plaint is rejected.
4. Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Sita Ram Thakur: In this case, the Patna High Court held that the rejection of a plaint on the ground of non-payment of court fees should be a rare and exceptional event, and should be done only when it is clear that the plaintiff has deliberately avoided paying the requisite fees. The court also observed that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to rectify any defects in the plaint before it is rejected.

In conclusion, the rejection of plaint in Indian law is a crucial step in ensuring that only valid and legitimate cases are brought to trial. However, this power should be exercised judiciously and with caution, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and fairness.

all rights reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)

it’s my opinion