Order VII Rule 11 and Rejection of Plaint: Key Supreme Court Interpretation

The case of Sejal Glass Ltd. vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. dealt with the fundamental legal question of whether a plaint can be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This matter was brought before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10802 of 2017, arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5862 of 2017.

The respondent, Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., had filed a civil suit seeking reliefs including a money decree amounting to Rs. 1,44,01,365/- with interest and the furnishing of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) certificates by the defendants. The defendants, including Sejal Glass Ltd., filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint, arguing that it did not disclose a cause of action.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, Sejal Glass Ltd., contended that the entire plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 as it did not disclose a cause of action against the directors of the company. The petitioner emphasized that the law does not allow for partial rejection of a plaint.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., countered that while certain parts of the plaint might not disclose a cause of action against specific defendants, the suit could still proceed against the principal defendant, i.e., the company.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, through Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, analyzed the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 and held:

“The provision refers to the ‘plaint,’ which necessarily means the plaint as a whole. It is only where the plaint as a whole does not disclose a cause of action that Order VII Rule 11 springs into being and interdicts a suit from proceeding.”

The Court cited various precedents, including Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co. (1936 Lahore), where it was held:

“There is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for the rejection of a plaint in part.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the defendants a period of eight weeks to file their written statement. The judgment reaffirmed that Order VII Rule 11 cannot be used to reject a part of the plaint, but only the plaint as a whole.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sejal Glass Ltd. vs Navilan Merchants Pv Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 21-08-2017.pdf