Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Rejection Of Plaint To Be Decided Solely On Plaint Averments : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC shall be decided based on the averments made in the plaint, and does not consider the defendant's defence or any external evidence.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's ruling, which rejected the plaint at the threshold, taking into account the defendant's defence while ignoring the averments made in the plaint.

“while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defence is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint.”, the court said.

Briefly put, the Plaintiff-Appellant had filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and possession through succession, without referencing a Will. The Respondent-defendant, however, brought the aspect of Will, stating that the suit property was bequeathed in his favour, and the land records entries mentioned his name against the suit property.

The trial court dismissed the defendant's application seeking rejection of plaint, noting that since the relief of possession is being claimed the limitation period for which extends to 12 years, from the period when the mutation proceedings became final and settled. Since the mutation proceedings were pending until 2017, and the suit was filed in 2019, the suit cannot be rejected on limitation ground, as it was filed within the limitation.

The High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, relied on facts outside the plaint including the defendant's claim that mutation occurred in 1983 based on Will and, ignored the fact that the mutation proceedings continued until 2017, held the suit time-barred when calculated from 1983 and dismissed it.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, and restoring the trial court's decision, the Judgment authored by Justice Misra observed that “the High Court while deciding the revision has failed to consider the plaint averments in its entirety and was swayed only by the fact that will set up was 36 years old.”

“It overlooked that will operates only on the death of the testator and here, after the death of the testator, the validity of the will was throughout questioned in mutation proceedings which continued and, ultimately, settled in the year 2017. In between, whether the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession would be a mixed question of law and fact and can appropriately be addressed only after evidence is led. The same cannot be made basis to reject the plaint at the threshold. In our view, therefore, the order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order(s) of the High Court are set aside. The order of the trial court rejecting the prayer to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is restored.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: KARAM SINGH VERSUS AMARJIT SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1011

Click here to read/download the judgment