Rejection of Plaint
কখন এবং কোন পর্যায়ে একটি আরজি নাকচ করিতে হইবে, এইরূপ কোন বাঁধা ধরা নিয়ম নাই। (45 DLR 1993 (AD) 31]
তামাদি ও রেস-জুডিকাটার প্রশ্নটি আরজি প্রত্যাখানের আবেদনে উপস্থাপিত হইয়াছিল। উহাদের সঙ্গে আইন এবং ঘটনার মিশ্র প্রশ্ন সংশ্লিষ্ট, তজ্জন্য বিচার আদালতের মাধ্যমে সুনির্দিষ্ট ইস্যু প্রণয়নপূর্বক যথাযথ সিদ্ধান্তে উপনীত হইতে যথেষ্ট সাক্ষ্যের ভিত্তিতে আদ্যপান্ত তদন্ত আবশ্যক। (52 DLR 49 (AD)]
আরজি ব্যক্ত করে যে, মামলা রুজুর কোন কারণ উল্লেখ করা হয় নাই। অতএব বিজ্ঞ সাব জজ আরজি প্রত্যাখান না করিয়া আইনে ভ্রান্ত করিয়াছেন। [52 DLR 215]
যেক্ষেত্রে মামলা রুজুর করার যদি কোন কারণ না থাকে কিংবা ইহা যদি কোন আইনের মাধ্যমে বারিত হয়, সেক্ষেত্রে আরজি প্রত্যাখান করা যাইবে, উহা না হইলে অনুরূপ করার আইনগত কোন সুযোগ নাই। [47 DLR 143]
আরজিতে মামলার কোন কারণ বর্ণিত হয় নাই ইহা প্রমাণ করিবার দায়িত্ব হইতেছে বিবাদির। মামলার কারণের অনুপস্থিতি আরজিতে আপাত দৃষ্টিতে লক্ষণীয়। [26 DLR 10]
মামলার ব্যাপারটি বিবেচনাকালে আদালত পর্যাপ্ত খেয়ালের সহিত আরজির বিবৃতির মধ্যে সীমিত থাকিবে। আরজির বর্হিরস্থ কোন জিনিসই বিবেচনায় আসিবে না এবং আদালত আরজির বিবৃতিরই একমাত্র সত্য হিসাবে বিবেচনায় আনিবে। [26 DLR 10]
আরজির বিবৃতিতে দৃষ্টি নিক্ষেপ করলেই সর্বপ্রথমে আদালতের নিকট মামলার কারণের অভাব দৃষ্টমান হইবে। তথাপি আরজিতে নালিশের কারণ ব্যক্ত না হওয়ার ব্যাপারটি প্রদর্শন করাইবার দায়িত্ব বিবাদির। [26 DLR 19]
আরজির উপস্থাপিত বিবৃতির প্রতি যত্নবান হইয়া দেখিতে হইবে যেন মামলাটি আইনের দ্বারা বারিত কিনা তাহা নির্ণয় করা। আরজি প্রত্যাখাত হইবে কিনা উহা উপলব্দি করিতে আদালতকে আরজির বিবৃতি পুঙ্খানুপুঙ্খ- ভাবে দেখিতে হইবে এবং আদালত উহার বাহিরে যাওয়ার কোন উপায় নাই। [51 DLR 221 (AD)]
ইহা সুমিমাংসিত যে, অত্র কোডের ৭ আদেশের ১১ বিধির অধীনে আরজি প্রত্যাখান করা যদি না যায় তবে আদালত উহার অন্তর্নিহিত ক্ষমতা প্রয়োগ করিতে পারিবে এবং অত্র কোডের [53 DLR 12 AD]
১৫১ ধারার আশ্রয় গ্রহণপূর্বক আরজি প্রত্যাখান করিতে পারিবে।
আদালতের দেওয়া নির্ধারিত সময়ের ভিতর আবশ্যকীয় ষ্ট্যাম্প উপস্থাপন না করার জন্য যদি আরজি প্রত্যাখান হয় তবে এইরূপ আদেশ অবশ্য যথাযথভাবে দৃষ্টমান হইবে। যদি নির্ধারিত সময়ের ভিতর তাহা উপস্থাপন না করার সঠিক কারণ থাকে তবে অত্র কোডের ১৫১ ধারায় আনিত আবেদনের প্রেক্ষিতে আরজি পুনর্বহালের আদেশ প্রদান করা যায়। [47 DLR 366]
আদালত আঞ্চলিক এখতিয়ারভুক্ত না হইলেই আরজি ফেরত প্রদান করিতে পারে। [45 DLR 106]
The rule deals with the power of the Court to reject the plaint. The object of O. VII. R. 11, C.P.C. is to save the parties from rigors of frivolous litigation at very inception of the proceedings. [1999 YLR 2061] Provision of O. VII, R. 11, is not exhaustive of all situation in which plaint can be rejected. Plaint is to be rejected by Court if on a perusal thereof it appears that the suit is incompetent. [PLD 1995 Lah. 344]
In view of allegation of malafide, rejection of plaint improper. The plaintiffs alleged that Madrasah had sufficient land for the purpose of the extension of the Madrasah. He alleged in his plaint that the defendant initiated the requisition proceeding out of grudge and ill motive and the requisitioning authority had requisitioned the suit property without inquiry. The Trial Court had recorded the finding that there was no inquiry before requisitioning the property in question. On the fact of such finding it is beyond comprehension as to how the plaint itself was rejected under Order VII, rule 11 CPC. [Nur Muhammad Vs. Mainuddin, 39 DLR (AD) 1]
Plaintiff alleges, that requisition has been made for collateral purpose-Rejection of the plaint in view of such allegations not proper. The main theme in the plaint is that the order of requisition was passed for a collateral purpose and thus maia fide in nature. It may be that ultimately the plaintiffs cannot prove mala fide as alleged in suit but the plaint cannot be rejected outright under Order VII, rule 11 CPC upon entering into the question at issue on the basis of facts to he proved by evidence. [Nur Muhammad Vs. Mainuddin, 39 DLR (AD) 1)
A plaint will not be rejected unless it shows want of cause of action and is not barred by any law. [Shahzadpur Central Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. Vs. Md Abdul Bari, 37 DLR 178]
Rejection of plaint without recording evidence and without considering the facts that ought to come out after taking evidence not sustainable. The suit was filed on the basis of a loss of contingent right that the plaintiff, an alleged promoter, was left out in the formation of the proposed Bank-Such a promoter has always a cause of action for filing the suit. [National Bank Lid. Vs. Haroon Malik & others, 42 DLR 103]
Bar of MLR and res judicata-The judgment by the Summary Military Court in the case being without jurisdiction the rejection of plaint on plea of earlier trial by such a court is not sustainable. [Meher Ali Vs. AK Murshid, 42 DLR 357]
The plaint alone (and not the application of the defendant) should be considered for arriving at a decision whether rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure merits or not. In so doing, the Court must apply its mind to the case of the plaintiff as set out in the body of the plaint as a whole assuming all the averments made therein to be true in the manner and form without taking into consideration the pleadings of the defendant. [Abul Hassnat Vs. Ershad Ali Beg 42 DLIZ 244]
There is no legal bar for a defendant to pray for rejection of the plaint and no bar to the court disposing of such a prayer before filing of the written statement. The learned Assistant Judge has thus fallen into an error in finding otherwise. [Mostafa Kamal Vs. BD Habibullah, 41 DLR 197]
Question of maintainability of suit: The Gazette Notification dated 21st October, 1984 assigned special jurisdiction to a Sub-Judge and Commercial Court relating to cases involving non-realisation of loans taken from financial institutions and banks. In the present suit the plaintiff having prayed for certain declarations relating to his property and the Sub-Judge being the court of original jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues involved in the suit, it is maintainable before the Sub-Judge as framed. [ANM Toufiq Vs. Janata Bank, 42 DLR 439]
Completion of registration is a mere procedural step. To reject a petition for pre-emption at the initial stage on the ground of non-registration of the document before filing of the petition would cause unnecessary hardship. By deferring the decision on the point of pre-maturity of the pre-emption petition till final hearing of the case itself the trial Court committed no error of law.
[Abdul Muhaimin Khan Vs. Bashiruddin, 45 DLR 382] Respondents in a civil suit alleged that they did not nominate any representative but the Chairman concerned out of grudge brought two of his men and showed them being nominated by the respondents in Village Court-Appellant (Defendant) proceeded for rejection of the plaint in the face of these allegations-Plaint in civil suit, cannot be rejected-To decide the truth of the matter evidence is necessary which can be available only in course of trial of the suit which is prima facie maintainable. [Kazi Mobarak Ali Vs. Mohammad Yeasin Mazumder, 43 DLR (AD) 60]
Rejection of plaint-At what stage it can be done-There is no hard and fast rule as to when and at what stage a plaint can be rejected. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. [Jobeda Khatun Vs. Momtaz Begum, 45 DLR (AD) 31)
Jurisdictions-When the Court rejects or refuses to reject a plaint it does so in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. Even where clause (d) of Or. Vll rule 11 of the Code is invoked the court is entitled to examine whether the suit is barred by law. [Guiness Peat (Trading) Limited Vs. Md Fazlur Rahman, 44 DLR (AD) 242] The plea of implied bar should ordinarily be decided on evidence unless the facts disclosed in the plaint clearly prove that the suit was not maintainable. A resort to section 151 of the Code may be made in an exceptional case. [Guiness Peat (Trading) Limited Vs. Md Fazlur Rahman, 44 DLR (AD) 242]
Rejection of plaint-The plaintiff made statement in the plaint admitting the possession of a Company in the suit land but did not make the Company a defendant in the suit-The company having not been impleaded and no prayer having been made for recovery of possession of the suit land the Courts below have committed no illegality in rejecting the plaint. [Khandakar Am irul Islam Vs. Khandakar Amanullah, 44 DLR 514]
After having exhausted all procedures under the Public Demands Recovery Act which is a special law the plaintiffs are precluded from coming to the civil Court. The instant suits are therefore barred by law on the face of the plaint themselves. [Marida Begum Vs. Md Hasan 43 DLR 242]
In an application for rejection of the plaint an the ground of nondisclosure of cause of action the court need not dissect the plaintiffs case part by part, if a part of the cause of action arizes within its jurisdiction. [Guiness Peat (Trading) Limited Vs. Md Fazlur Rahman, 44 DLR (AD) 242]
Although rejection of the plaint was prayed for, the plaint is returned to the filing advocate in exercise of inherent power as the Admiralty Court lacks jurisdiction and the plaint cannot be rejected by such a court, the provision for rejection of plaint having not been made applicable under the rule of the Admiralty Court. [Madina Vegetable and Oil Refinery Industries (Private) Limited Vs. MT Dolore's, 45 DLR 740]
Fresh suit-Same cause of action-Since two suits were filed one after another upon the same cause of action, the later suit ought to have been stayed. The later suit having been brought before the dismissal of the Title Suit No. 210 of 1981 the bar of Or. IX rule 9 has no manner of application in the present case. [Hajee Abdul Latif Vs. Abdul Huq 44 DLR 601]
Suit for declaration of ex parte decree fraudulent-Scope of such a suit-Cause of action to file and maintain such suit-falsity of claim cannot be a ground for setting aside an ex parte decree. Only when the plaintiff challenges an ex parte decree on the ground of fraudulent suppression of summons to deprive him of the opportunity of contesting the false claim in such a suit and the plaintiff can establish such allegation then such an ex parte decree can be set aside as fraudulent. The plaintiff having purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit which was decreed ex parte the impugned decree is binding on him. They have no cause of action for the suit. [Haji Md Ishaque and others Vs. Rupali Bank, 43 DLR 621)
The Court is not required to look into maintainability of the suit at the time of hearing of injunction matter. Maintainability of the suit is to be decided after filing of the written statement and framing of any issue on such point. [Nasir Miah, Malik Nasir Soap Factory Vs. Md Anwar Hossain, Executive Officer, Commander Soap Factory Ltd., 48 DLR 28]
There is no legal scope to reject the plaint unless the plaint itself shows the want of cause of action for the suit or the suit being barred by any law. [Abul Masud Khan Vs. Khan Mohammad Abdullah Rahmatullah, 47 DLR 143] When the petitioners failed to negative the findings of the High Court Division against their plea of malafide, the petition against maintaining the order of rejection of plaint is dismissed. [WB Industrial Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Deen Mohammad Rana and another 48 DLR (AD) 50]
The phrase "equity and good conscience" are not in Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the learned Single Judge wrongly imported this concept in the section which he was not permitted to do. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge suffers from irrelevant and rambling exercises bereft of legal acumen and hence the same is set aside. [Irfan Saved (Md) Vs. Mrs Rukshana Motin and others, 48 DLR (AD) 134]
The question of limitation in a suit is a mixed question of law and fact which can be decided only at the trial on taking evidence. In view of the reliefs prayed in the suit, the plaint cannot be rejected. [Shahabuddin (Md) dc others Vs. Habibur Rahman and others, 50 DLR (AD) 99]
The plaint could be rejected only when the court comes to the conclusion that even if all the averments made in the plaint are taken to be true still then the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief at all. [Mohsena Begum Vs. Abdus Sattar, 50 DLR 29]
Court may look into the averments made in the plaint and cannot go beyond the same to find whether plaint is liable to be rejected or not. [Eastern Bank Ltd. Vs. Subordinate Judge and another, 49 DLR 531]
In deciding the question as to whether the plaint should be rejected the Court is required to consider only the plaint assuming all the averments made therein to be correct, without taking into consideration the possible defence plea. [Nurunnessa and others Vs. Mohibuddin Chowdhury and others, 49 DLR 234]
In an application under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code the statement in the plaint has to be looked into to determine if the suit is barred-by any law. But under Article 34(5) it is not the statement in the plaint but the reliefs claimed in the suit which will determine whether the suit is entertainable or not. (Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs. Rahman Textile Mills Lid. and others, 51 DLR (AD) 221]
The defendant-appellant need not have filed applications under Order VII, rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. It could have maintained applications under Article 34(5) of President's Order No. 128 of 972, not for rejection of the plaint, but for not entertaining the suits. [Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs. Rahman Textile Mills Ltd. and others, 51 DLR (AD) 221] In exercising this power the Court can look into the statements in the plaint alone. It cannot consider any fact stated in the written statement or any document produced by the defendant. [Khurshid Miah and another, 52 DLR 614]
The application made under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act is not a plaint. The application of the petitioner under Order VII rule 11 of the Code for rejection of such application is wholly misconceived. [Dhaka Leather Company Ltd. Vs. Sikder Construction Ltd. and another, 54 DLR 357] The petitioner having specifically raised the issue that liabilities of Group-13 share holders are limited to extent of the shares as subscribed by them and when averments made in the plaint show that the plaintiffs demanded Taka 17,3 from
Group-B share holding, being 35% of the loss of Taka 52,70,802.00 suffered by the company, the plaint disclosed no cause of action for filing suit and the Subordinate Judge committed an error of law or justice in not rejecting the plaint. [Tanveerul Haque Vs. Unistar Shipping Limited and ors., 52 DLR 215]
The Court while deciding application about rejection of plaint is not permitted in law to travel beyond the averments made in the plaint. [Abul Khair (Md) Vs. Pubali Bank Ltd. and another, 53 DLR (AD) 62]
Against the dismissal options were open to the plaintiff either to sue in a civil Court or to move in writ under Article 102 of the Constitution. He opted to sue in a civil Court. The decisions of the Courts below setting aside the order of returning the plaint therefore do not call for interference. [Sonali Bank and others Vs. Md Jalaluddin and another, 53 DLR 48]
There is no hard and fast rule when an application for rejection of plaint is to be filed but ends of justice demands that it must be filed at the earliest opportunity. [Kazi (Md) Shahajan and another Vs. Md Khalilur Rahman Madbar and others, 54 DLR (AD) 125]
The Subordinate Judge could have split up the suit for trying the second cause which is for damages for defamatory statement and for implicating the plaintiff in a false case The claim on account of tort committed by the defendant can be tried by the civil Court. [Khandkar Abul Hussain Vs. Gove rnment of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others, 54 DLR 467]
It is not the relief which is claimed, rather it is the relief which can be given to the plaintif, that has to be looked into and considered in a plaint. [Shafi A Choudhury Vs. Pubali Bank Ltd. and others, 54 DLR 310]
Where a certain fact is brought to the notice of the Court, though not specifically mentioned in the plaint or crops up subsequent to the filing of the suit and accepted as true by both the parties, such a fact; though not referred to in the plaint, can be taken into consideration for deciding the question of rejection of a plaint. [Shafi A Choudhury Vs. Pubali Bank Ltd. and others, 54 DLR 310]
In a suit for damages and compensation where the plaint does not show how damages were suffered and what are those damages, the plaint is liable to be rejected in limine. [Nazim Habibuzzaman Vs. World Bank, and others 54 DLR 159]
In deciding the question as to whether a plaint is liable to be rejected, the Court is always required to peruse the plaint and the plaint only. A Court is not permitted to travel beyond the plaint to dig out grounds to reject a plaint. (Shan Hosiery Vs. Bangladesh Jatiya Shamabaya Shilpa Sam ity Ltd. and others, 54 DLR 291]
When the nature of transaction becomes doubtful on the specific allegation made by the pre-emptor then the matter is required to be tested by adducing evidence in order to ascertain the nature of transaction and to decide the case properly. [Alfazuddin Mollah and others Vs. Md Almas Chokder and anr., 56 DLR (AD) 179]
For the ascertainment of the cause of action court is required to read the plaint in its entirety. [Sunder Ali being dead his heirs Abdul Hannan and others Vs. Md Serajul Islam Sarker & others, 56 DLR (AD) 210]
Order VII rules 11 and 13-Rejection of plaint under rule 11 of Or. VII does not preclude a fresh suit under r. 13. But still rejection of a plaint should not be hastily made without affording opportunity to the plaintiff either to cure the defect or to amend the plaint. The power of rejection of a plaint shall be exercised only if the Court comes to the conclusion on mere reading of the plaint that even if all the allegations are proved the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever. [Chairman, BISE Vs. MotUheel Model High School, 46 DLR 485]
Order VII rule 11 & Order XIV rule 2-Since the law imposes a duty to determine the question of maintainability of the suit as the preliminary issue the Subordinate Judge erred in passing the impugned order without considering whether the suit could be decided on the preliminary issue. Even his refusal to decide the preliminary issue on the question of maintainability of the suit is to be held as illegal and arbitrary. [Abdul Halim Talukder alias Chand Mia Talukder Vs. Md Hazrat Ali Talukder and others 49 DLR 564]
Rule 11(a)-It is now well settled by good authorities that a proceeding is though premature on the date of filing but with the continuance of the proceed- ing becomes matured, such question of immaturity loses all defects and becomes cured. (Sardar Jan Mohammad and another Vs. Lutfannessa and others, 56 DLR 514]
Rule 11(a)(d)-The questions of limitation and of res judicata raised in the application for rejecting the plaint are mixed questions of law and fact, which need thorough investigation on adequate evidence for arriving at a correct decision on framing specific issues. [Mahbubul Huq (Md) Vs. Md A Kader Munshi & others, 52 DLR 194]
Rule 11(b)(c)-An order rejecting a plaint is a decree and as such appeal lies against such order. In case of rejection of plaint under clause (b) or (c) it is difficult to get relief in a an appeal. When a plaint is rejected for not supplying the requisite stamp papers within a time fixed by the court, as in such a case impugned order must be found to be a proper one. But if there is sufficient cause for not supplying the same within the time fixed, restoration of the plaint may be ordered in appropriate cases on an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
[Radha Rani Sadhu Kha Vs. Durga Rani Adhikari, 47 DLR 360] Rule 11(d)-Principles governing the rejection of plaint-In the instant case it is concerned with clause (d) of rule il which provides that for rejecting the plaint the finding of the suit to be barred by any law must be based on the statement in the plaint. In other words, the plaint be rejected on that ground on the basis of statement made by the defendant in his pleading or in his application under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code. [Jalaluddin Ahmed Vs. Matiur Rahman Khan, 41 DLR 77]
Rule 11(d)-There is nothing on record to show that the suit is barred by any law The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is without any legal basis and not sustainable in law. [Ayezuddin Sheikh Vs. Abdul Karim Sheikh, 42 DLR 154]
Rule 11(d)-In exercising the power of rejecting a plaint the Court can look into the statements of the plaint only. It cannot consider any fact stated in the written statement or any document produced by the defendant. [Sudhansu Kmuar Barai Vs. Abdul Hashem, 43 DLR 327)
Rule 11(d)-In the instant case where the plaintiff does not dispute the determination of her share as in the preliminary decree but disputes, on the ground of fraud, the actual allocation of share in the final decree drawn in earlier suit, the invocation of the rule of finality is beside the point. (Nannu Miah Vs. Mosammat Peer Banu Bibi, 43 DLR 526]
Rule 11(d)-A plaint is liable to rejection where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. (Chief Engineer Roads and Hig- hways Department Vs. Concord Engineers and Construction Ltd., 48 DLR 243] Rule 11(d)-Questions of limitation and res judicata raised in the application for rejecting the point are mixed questions of law and fact which need thorough investigation on adequate evidence for arriving at a correct decision on framing specific issues by the trial Court. [Mahbzrbul Hadue Vs. Md A Kader Munshi, 52 D.LR (AD) 49]
Code of Civil Procedure [V of 1908]
Order 7, Rule 11 read with Succession Act [XXXIX of 1925]
Section 57, 58 and 213 read with Mohammedan Law
Section 117 It is now well settled that when on the face of the plaint, it is found that the suit is barred by any law or is foredoomed and if it is allowed to be proceeded with, it will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court is empowered to reject the plaint in exercising its inherent power. The application under order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure rejected the plaint on the ground that according to the provisions of Section 213 of the Succession Act, 1925 a Mohammedan cannot establish his right as executor or legatee. The Appellate Division held that the High Court Division without considering the pertinent legal issue that the provisions of Succession Act and Mohammedan law the probate case is not maintainable, passed the impugned judgment simply holding that without taking evidence, the dispute between the parties cannot be resolved, and as such committed serious error of law and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.....(21 & 21) [31 ALR (2024) (AD) 9]
Abdul Jalil and others vs. Islamic Bank Bangladesh Ltd. and others, reported in 53 DLR (AD), 12 this Division has held that "......as the ultimate result of the suit is as clear as daylight such a suit should be burried at its inception so that no further time is consumed in a fruitless litigation." Similar view also has been expressed by this Division in the cases of Guiness Peat (Trading) Limited Vs. Md. Fazlur Rahman, reported in 44 DLR (AD), 242; Rasheda Begum vs. M.M. Nurussafa and others, reported in 24 BLD (AD) 223.
This cases are referred in [31 ALR (2024) (AD) 9].
Rule 11(d)-The plaint of a suit for declaration that the election of the society is illegal and the Executive Committee constituted thereof void, cannot be rejected when the plaintiff challenged the validity of the election. [Abdul Hannan Vs. Managing Committee Mohammadia Market Baboshahi Bahumukhi Samabaya Samity Limited, 55 DLR 409] Order VII rule 11(d) and section 9-The aggrieved member of the trade organisation must exhaust his remedies by way of reference to an Arbitration Tribunal before invoking the aid of the Civil Court. [Shaikh Ansar Ali & others Vs. Md Tofazzal Hossain and others, 55 DLR 211]
12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra): AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3310, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 634
Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra): AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3310, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 634
The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra): AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3310, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 634
If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra): AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3310, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 634
