Latest JudgementCode of Civil Procedure, 1908

Niharkanti Mishra v. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik & Ors., 2025

Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-disclosure of cause of action vs. non-existence of cause of action

Orissa High Court·3 April 2025

Court

Orissa High Court

Date of Decision

3 April 2025

Judges

Justice Ananda Chandra Behera

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure Section 115 of the CPC

Facts of the Case

A suit was filed by the plaintiffs (opposite parties) against the defendants (including the petitioner) for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, and for permanent injunction, with reference to the cause of action accrued.
The petitioner (Defendant No.3) filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on January 5, 2024, seeking the rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was bereft of any cause of action, rendering the suit unsustainable.
The plaintiffs objected to this, denying the petitioner’s claim.
The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, rejected the petition on March 13, 2024, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and thus, the rejection was not warranted.
The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Orissa High Court under Section 115 of the CPC, challenging the trial court’s decision.

Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-existence of cause of action.
The distinction between non-disclosure and non-existence of cause of action in a plaint.
Whether the averments in the plaint disclosed a cause of action sufficient to sustain the suit.

The Orissa High Court reiterated that a plaint cannot be rejected for the mere non-existence of cause of action, but it can be rejected for the non-disclosure of the same.
The Court emphasized the difference between non-existence and non-disclosure of a cause of action. It held that a plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it fails to disclose a cause of action; however, non-existence of cause of action does not serve as a valid ground for rejecting a plaint.
The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jageshwari Devi v. Shatrughan Ram and the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court decision in Kishore Kumar v. Ishar Dass (2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 250), both of which affirmed that non-disclosure of cause of action falls within the scope of Order VII Rule 11, but non-existence does not.
The Court further observed that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is a question of fact, and in this case, it found that the averments in Para No.16 of the plaint clearly disclosed the cause of action for filing the suit. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner for rejecting the plaint based on non-existence of cause of action was rejected.
Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld.

The Orissa High Court held that A plaint cannot be rejected for the non-existence of cause of action. A plaint can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The plaint in the present case disclosed a valid cause of action, and the trial court’s decision to reject the petitioner’s plea for rejection of the plaint was correct.
The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court’s decision was upheld.

This judgment reaffirms a settled legal principle regarding the grounds for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court draws a clear distinction between non-disclosure and non-existence of cause of action, which is crucial for interpreting provisions relating to the rejection of plaints.
Non-disclosure refers to situations where a plaint fails to provide adequate details or averments necessary to establish a cause of action. In such cases, the Court may direct rejection of the plaint.
On the other hand, non-existence of cause of action implies that even if the plaint discloses certain facts, those facts do not lead to a legally valid cause of action. In such cases, the proper recourse is not the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, but rather a challenge during the trial or in the form of a dismissal based on merits after trial.
The Orissa High Court’s reasoning aligns with previous decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, affirming the principle that Order VII Rule 11 serves to ensure that only those suits that are legally sustainable, with a clear cause of action disclosed, are allowed to proceed.
The Court's emphasis on the factual nature of cause of action and the need for detailed averments in the plaint ensures that plaintiffs are not deprived of their rights prematurely, while also preventing frivolous or vague suits from continuing.