DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PROJECT

PLAINT: REFUSAL AND RETURN OF PLAINT BY COURT

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. VIPUL VINOD
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
LAW

SUBMITTED BY:
ARYAN YADAV
ENROLMENT NO. – 220101048
SECTION A
B.A. LL.B.(HONS.)
SEMESTER IV
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The product at hand is not the effort of the researcher alone. I would like to take this

opportunity to thank Mr. Vipull Vinod for allowing me to take up a topic of my interest.

Also, I wish to express my gratitude for his valuable support, guidance and advice which

has helped me to complete this project. I would also like to thank the library staff for

working long hours to facilitate us with required material going a long way in quenching

our thirst for education. I would also like to thank my seniors for guiding me through

tough times they themselves have been through, and lastly I would like to thank my friends

for keeping alive the spirit of competition in me.

Aryan Yadav
220101048
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................4

REJECTION OF THE PLAINT...............................................................................................................5

Rejection Of Plaint by The Court.........................................................................................................5

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION................................................................................................................5

OTHER ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REJECTION........................................................................7

PART REJECTION OF PLAINT............................................................................................................ 8

RETURN OF PLAINT BY THE COURT............................................................................................... 9

Territorial Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................................9
Pecuniary Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................................... 9
Subject-matter Jurisdiction............................................................................................................... 10
PROCEDURE FOR RETURNING THE PLAINT............................................................................... 10
 INTRODUCTION

The term Plaint has not been defined in the Code. However, it can be defined as a statement
of claim by presentation of which the suit is instituted. It is pleading of the plaintiff. Order
VII lays down rules relating to plaint. Rules 1-8 of Order VII deals with particular required
in a plaint. Plaint means a statement in writing of a cause of action in which the relief is
claimed is set out in detail or a document by presentation of which a suit is to be instituted.
Thus, plaint is a pleading that contains all such contents as are provided under this rule, as a
frame of such plaint. Rule 1 of Order VII1 contents that a plaint must contain certain
particulars required to be stated in the plaint:
1. Name of the court (For ex. in the Matter of Civil Judge Junior Division) in which the
matter is to be tried [Rule 1(a)],
2. The name, description and place of residence of plaintiff [Rule 1(b)],
3. The name, description and place of residence of defendant [Rule 1(c)],
4. The fact of any of the party being a minor [Rule 1(d)],
5. The cause of action (Pleadings) [Rule 1(e)],
6. Facts showing that the court has jurisdiction [Rule 1(f)],
7. Relief claimed by the Plaintiff, simply or in alternative [Rule 1(g), 7 & 8],
8. Where the Plaintiff has allowed set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount
so relinquished [Rule 1(h)],
9. The valuation of the suit [Rule 1(i)],
10. Where the suit is for recovery of money, precise amount claimed [Rule2],2
11. Where the subject matter is an immovable property, a description of the property
sufficient to identify the same [Rule 3],3
12. If the suit is filed in representative capacity, the fact showing that the plaintiff has an
actual existing interest in the subject matter and he has taken steps that may be necessary to
enable him to file such a suit [Rule 4].4

1 Civil Procedure Code,1908, Rule 1 of Order VII, No. 5 (India).

2
Civil Procedure Code,1908, Rule 2 of Order VII, No. 5 (India).
3
Civil Procedure Code,1908, Rule 3 of Order VII, No. 5 (India).
4
Civil Procedure Code,1908, Rule 4 of Order VII, No. 5 (India).
 REJECTION OF THE PLAINT

A plaint can be rejected by the Court if it does not mention a cause of action which is to be
taken by the plaintiff against the respondent. It is perceived as an abuse of the process of the
Court. Cause of Action has been mentioned at various places in the Code of Civil Procedure.
The cause of action is necessary because it discloses the facts that made the plaintiff take such
action. The grounds provided in the rule are not exhaustive i.e., the court may always evolve
certain other defects in the plaint that may lead to its rejection. For e.g. the non-service of notice
under Section 80 of CPC and the plaint being instituted in one such defect.
The Supreme Court in Mayar H.K. Ltd. v. Owner and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune
Express,5 held that grounds of rejection of plaint specified in Rule 11 are not exhaustive. A
plaint can be rejected on other relative grounds also. Where the plaint is found to be
vexatious or meritless, not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court may reject the plaint.
When the plaint is being rejected, the court needs to just look at the plaint and
nothing else. Moreover, a part of the plaint cannot be rejected, the plaint if rejected, has to
be rejected as a whole.

Rejection Of Plaint by The Court

Order 7 Rule 1 lays down the contents of a plaint and some of these contents cannot be
missed by the pleader. If such content is missed, the court is empowered to reject the plaint
and the plaintiff has to resubmit the plaint after making necessary modifications. Rejection,
however, is not the first option before the court. Law is not to humiliate the victim; it is to
give an opportunity to a vigilante and bona fide victim to claim remedies. Therefore, CPC
allows amendment of the plaint at any time before the judgment is passed so that the court
does not have to reject the plaint.

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION

Order 7 Rule 116 lays down the specific grounds for rejection of the plaint. There are six
grounds for which a plaint can be rejected under this provision and they are as follows:
When the plaintiff has omitted or abstained from unveiling the cause of action, i.e., the overt

5
Mayar H.K. Ltd. v. Owner and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, AIR 2006 SC 1828
6
Civil Procedure Code,1908, Rule 11 of Order VII, No. 5 (India).
act or omission by the defendant that led the plaintiff to file this suit

When the plaintiff has intentionally or unintentionally undervalued the plaint.

Undervaluation means showing that the value of a property is less so that the valuation of the
suit is at a lesser amount and the court can exercise jurisdiction on the matter which,
otherwise, could not have exercised if the suit was correctly valued.

Under the Stamps Act, every legal document is required to be drafted on a stamp paper of
the requisite value which depends on several factors such as nature of the document
(whether it is plaint, rent agreement, etc.), valuation of the suit, etc. If it is not filed on the
stamp paper of the value specified by law, the court may ask the plaintiff to submit the stamp
paper and if he fails to do that, it can be rejected.
When the filing of the suit is barred by law and it is evident from the statement of the plaint,
the court shall reject the plaint. For instance, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,
when a company is unable to pay its debts, its creditors can initiate an insolvency process. It
means the company is given time to revive, make profits and repay its creditors. This period is
called moratorium and under Section 13 of the Code, every suit is barred against the company
during the period of moratorium.

It is required to be filed in duplicate. It means the plaintiff has to file two copies of the
plaint, one for the court and other for the defendant. If the plaintiff has not filed the plaint in
duplicate, the court is empowered to reject it.

Order 7 Rule 9(1)7 requires that the plaintiff submits as many copies as the court asks for to
be submitted to the defendants. It is usually the number of copies as there is the number of
defendants and such copies have to be submitted on a plain paper. If the plaintiff fails to
submit the required number of copies of the plaint, it becomes a ground for rejection of the
plaint.

Order 7 Rule 9(1A) requires that the plaintiff submits the requisite fees that will be incurred
by the court to serve the summons to the defendants. In a criminal case, the summons is
served at the cost of the state. However, in a civil suit, the fees need to be paid by the
plaintiff. If such payment is not made within 7 days from the date of order of payment, the
plaint is liable to be rejected.

7
Civil Procedure Code,1908, Rule 9(1) of Order VII, No. 5 (India).
 OTHER ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REJECTION

The courts have expounded few other grounds which are in addition to the grounds laid
down in Rule 11. These grounds have been created by instances in several cases and as the
court found necessary. These are:

In Radhakishen v. Wali Mohammed,8 the court allowed the rejection of plaint by the
senior civil court because the person whose signature was present on the plaint was not the
authorized signatory of the entity but someone else. The court allowed the error to be
amended within 7 days but since, the plaintiff to do so, it was rejected.

In Arivandanam v. T.V. Satyapal,9 the court held that the intention of the plaint has to be
understood from its wordings. If the plaint is exasperating and the court believes that it is
filed with a malicious intention to irk the defendant and that it lacks merit, it can be a valid
ground for rejection.

In Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath Alias K.N. Singh & Ors.,10 an appeal was filed under
Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court. The respondent i.e., Kedar Nath won the Lok Sabha Elections from
Hapur. The appellant was able to secure only 617 votes in the election. The election
petition was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure because it did
not disclose any cause of action.

In K. Thakshinamoorthy v. State Bank of India,11 a revision petition was filed against the
order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The Additional Judge had
rejected the plaint on the grounds that there was no cause of action mentioned. The
defendants sought to get the plaint rejected in that case. Ultimately, the plaint was rejected
on the grounds of absence of a cause of action.

In S.N.P. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. World Tanker Carrier Corporation,12 the plaint

8
Radhakishen v. Wali Mohammed, AIR 1956 Hyd 133.
9 Arivandanam v. T.V. Satyapal, 1978 SCR (1) 742.
10
Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath Alias K.N. Singh & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1926.
11
K. Thakshinamoorthy v. State Bank of India, AIR 2001 Mad 167.
12
S.M.P. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. World Tanker Carrier Corporation, AIR 2000 Bom 34
 was rejected on the same grounds that there was no cause of action mentioned in the plaint
submitted by the plaintiff

PART REJECTION OF PLAINT

The Supreme Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattter Singh Gill,13 held that a part of the
plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed the plaint should be rejected as a
whole.

The Supreme Court in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank, held that plaint can either be
rejected as a whole or not at all. It is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular
portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against
the others. The proviso further provides that when the time is fixed by the court for removal
of defects under clause (b) or (c) has expired, further time shall not be extended unless the
court is satisfied that plaintiff was prevented by any cause of exceptional nature.

An order of rejection of plaint is a deemed decree, as provided under Section 2(2) of CPC,
1908. In R.K. Roja v. U.S.Rayadu & Anr.,14 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The
application under Order VII Rule 11 may be filed at any stage but once the application is
filed the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial”.

Thus, there can be partial striking out of pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code, but
not partial rejection of the plaint.

13
Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattter Singh Gill, 1983 SCR (1) 702.
14
R.K. Roja v. U.S.Rayadu & Anr., (2016) 14 SCC 275
 RETURN OF PLAINT BY THE COURT

The CPC empowers the civil courts to return the plaint to the plaintiff if the court believes
that the plaint is not properly filed. Return is different from rejection and it needs to be noted.
Return of plaint does not connote that the plaint had mistaken or that the rules for drafting
the plaint were not conformed to. It simply means that the court is not empowered to try the
suit for which the plaint is filed. On the contrary, the plaint is rejected if the essential
requirements of a plaint are not provided in the plaint or if the certain elements are vague
and ambiguous.

According to Order 7 Rule 10(1) of CPC,15 a plaint is returned on the sole ground of lack of
jurisdiction with the concerned court.

For instance, a plaint is filed in the city civil court by A against his employer for unlawful
retrenchment from a job. Since there are specific labour courts to deal with these cases, the
city civil court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudge and hence, plaint can be returned by
the court. Under this rule, the court can return the plaint for lack of jurisdiction but the
plaintiff has every right to file the plaint again in the appropriate forum.
The court can lack jurisdiction on three occasions:

Territorial Jurisdiction

Every court has a specific territory under its control and it can take cases when disputes have
arisen in those territories only. Territorial jurisdiction is determined according to the law.
For instance, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a divorce petition can be filed in the place
where the married couple resided during marriage or where they last resided before
separation or where the wife resides after separation. Thus, all these courts have territorial
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, if a plaint is filed outside these places, it can be returned.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction

15
Civil Procedure Code,1908, Rule 10(1) of Order VII, No. 5 (India).
 The term pecuniary means related to money or monetary. Every suit is required to be valued
according to the compensation that is claimed and the value of the property which is in
dispute, if any. This is called suit valuation and it is decided according to the State Suit
Valuation and Court Fees Acts. Now, every court has been allotted a limit which means a suit
which is valued within the limits of that court’s pecuniary jurisdiction is admissible and rest
is returned.

In general, Small Causes Courts have jurisdiction for suit valued between INR 1 to
2,00,000. Junior Civil Judge exercises jurisdiction for suits valued between INR 2,00,001 to
10,00,000. Senior Civil Judge can exercise his jurisdiction in cases valued above INR
10,00,000 and upto 20,00,000 and any case above 20,00,000 is taken to the High Court.
However, the pecuniary jurisdiction differs from state to state and was also amended by the
Commercial Courts Establishment Act in Delhi.

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

Every court has been established to deal with cases of specific nature. For instance, civil
courts deal with civil cases, criminal courts deal with criminal with criminal matter, family
courts deal with personal laws and so on. If it is filed before a court that does not deal in that
matter, the court is empowered to return the plaint to be filed b before competent court. If it is
filed before a court that does not deal in that matter, the court is empowered to return the
plaint to be filed before competent court.

PROCEDURE FOR RETURNING THE PLAINT

The procedure for returning the plaint depends upon two circumstances. First, where the
court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it
feels that the plaint needs to be returned. Second, where the defendant has appeared and after
which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction. In cases
where the defendant has not yet appeared and the court opines to return the plaint, Order 7
Rule 2(2) mandates the court to endorse the following particulars on the plaint:

 Date on which the plaint was initially presented by the plaintiff,

 Date on which the plaint is being returned by the court. The returning date is not the one
where the court formed the opinion but when the court actually returned the plaint.
 Cause title, i.e. the details of the party which presented the plaint.

 Reasons that compelled the court to return the plaint.

In ONGC ltd. v. Modern Construction and Company16, the court held that when an
incompetent or court without jurisdiction returns the plaint and it is filed before a court that
has the requisite jurisdiction, such plaint must be considered a fresh plaint and there needs
to be a de novo trial that should be conducted for the new suit even if in the original suit,
trial had completed.

16
ONGC ltd. v. Modern Construction and Company, AIR 2014 SC 83.
 CONCLUSION

Order VII of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the topic of rejection and return of plaint
and all the relevant provisions along with their respective case laws have bee discussed in this
compilation. Each and every plaint must contain all the essentials of a plaint as are mentioned
in Rule 1 of Order VII and if it is not done so then it is liable for rejection.