Introduction

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure recognizes the power of

ultimate jurisdiction of the civil courts to try all suits of civil
nature. But this power is subordinate to the provisions of the Code
itself; one of these limitations is stated under Order VII Rule 10.
The court in which a plaint is presented may accept the plaint, or
reject the plaint, or it may return the plaint to the plaintiff. It is a
first duty of court, before which a suit is instituted to properly
examine the plaint, for the purpose of determining, whether it
should be returned, or rejected and in order to determine, the
question of rejection it is the responsibility the court to take into
consideration other materials too, order 7 Rule 11 of CPC narrate
cases where plaint should be rejected.
 Return of plaint

ORDER VII Rule 10

 Nature of Order 7 Rule 10:

Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC is of mandatory

nature because the court has no option but
to return the plaint; if it is not filed before
the proper forum. However if the plaint is
transferred by the court to another court
which doesn’t have jurisdiction to
determine the matter in question; the
plaint in that case shall be returned to the
court which transferred the matter and not
 Scope:
The question of return of plaint will arise only if the
court has no jurisdiction and the court in which the
plaint is filed is of an opinion that the suit should have
been filed in another court. The scope of Rule 10 is
confined to jurisdictional defects. An improperly
instituted suit has to be returned to the plaintiff to be
filed before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction.
 Stage at which the plaint may be
returned:
The plaint shall be returned as soon as
the fact of its being placed before the
wrong forum comes to the notice of the
court. The term at “any stage” includes
the appeal stage. However every effort
should be made to determine the
jurisdiction of the court as soon as the
plaint is filed.
Procedure to be followed while
returning plaint.
Rule 10(1):

Where at any stage of the suit, the Court finds that it has
no jurisdiction, either territorial or pecuniary or with
regard to the subject matter of the suit, it will return the
plaint to be presented to the proper Court in which the
suit ought to have been filed.
 BOMBAY HIGH COURT AMENDMENT
In Order VII, 10 sub-rule (1)--

10. Return of plaint.--(1) Subject to the

"

provisions of Rule 10-A. The plaint shall

at any stage of the suit be returned to
be presented to the Court in which the
suit should have been instituted. The
plaintiff or his pleader shall be informed
of the date fixed for the return of the
plaint".
[Explanation.--For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court
of appeal or revision may direct, after
setting aside the decree passed in a suit,
the return of the plaint under this sub-
rule.]
 Rule 10 (2)
The Judge returning the plaint should make
endorsement on the plaint regarding:

The date of presentation of the suit,

The date of return of the suit,

The name of the parties who presented the

suit, and

The reason of so returning in brief.

 BOMBAY HIGH COURT AMENDMENT
In Order VII, 10 sub-rule (1)--
"10. Return of plaint.--(1) Subject to
the provisions of Rule 10-A. The plaint
shall at any stage of the suit be
returned to be presented to the Court
in which the suit should have been
instituted. The plaintiff or his pleader
shall be informed of the date fixed for
the return of the plaint".]
 Rule 10-A:

This rule says that if the Court formed an opinion

that  the plaint should be returned and the
defendant has already appeared, the decision to
return shall be intimated to the  plaintiff. The
plaintiff has a right to make an application to the
Court specifying the new Court in which he
proposes  to present the plaint after it is
returned.
He may also request by application that the
Court may fix a date for the  appearance of the
parties in the said Court and that the notice of
the date so fixed may be given to him and to
the  defendant. The Court then shall fix a date
for appearance of parties in the proposed Court
and give notice.
 Rule 10-B:

This rule has been added to Rule 10 with a view to

empowering the Court hearing an appeal against
an order of return of plaint to direct that, instead of
the plaint being returned, the suit may be
transferred to the Court in which it should have
been instituted. Further, the provision for obviating
the necessary for serving summonses on the
defendants, where the return of plaint was made
after the appearance of the defendants in the suit,
have also been included in the rule.
Consequences of non-compliance:
Where the court having no jurisdiction gives its
verdict; its decision is coram non judice and is
not binding on anyone.
 Effect on limitation period:

Filing of suit in the court having no jurisdiction

does not stop the computation of time limitation.
And the suit can be barred if the time allowed for
filing the suit has been elapsed due to the
initiation of proceeding in wrong forum. But can
be excluded from period of limitation during
which he prosecuted the case before the court
having no jurisdiction in view of the provisions
of  Section 14 of the Limitation Act
Important and Latest Judgment of the Apex
Court and High Court:
In the case of

R. S. D.V. Finance Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Shree Vallabh Glass

works [AIR 1993 SC 2094] the Hon’ble Apex court has held that
when the court has come to the conclusion that it does not have
jurisdiction to try a suit, the only course to be adopted in such
circumstances was to return the plaintiff for representation before
the proper court and not to dismiss the suit and not to dismiss the
suit.
 In HANAMAN THAPPER V. CHANDRA
SHEKARAPPA AIR 1997 S.C. 1307
the plaint was refiled in proper court after making
amendment of the plaint. The High Court dismissed
such objection but treated the plaint to be a fresh
plaint subject to the law of limitation, pecuniary
jurisdiction and payment of court fees. The Supreme
Court has upheld the order of the High Court and
held that it is not always necessary for the plaintiff to
seek permission for amendment of the plaint before
the court before the plaint was returned.
 Vishnu Horticultural Pvt. Ltd. and Anr V.Shampiyan
Viniyard Ltd. and Ors. 2010(1)BomCR328
In other words, the service of summons to the
defendant would be the date fixed by the court while
returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10.
Therefore, the Court in which the plaint was
presented was required to follow the procedure
contemplated by the provisions of the Code as if it
was a fresh suit. The defendant, therefore, has a
right to file a fresh written statement in the suit
irrespective of the fact whether it is consistent with
earlier written statement filed in the court which had
no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
 ONGC Ltd. v Modern Construction and
Company (2014)1 SCC 648.
The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that if
the court where the suit is instituted, is of the view that it
has no jurisdiction, the plaint is to be returned in view of
the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. and the plaintiff
can present it before the court having competent
jurisdiction. In such a factual matrix, the plaintiff is entitled
to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case
before the court having no jurisdiction in view of the
provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and may also
seek adjustment of court fee paid in that court. However,
after presentation before the court of competent
jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint
and the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood
concluded before the court having no competence to try the
same.
JAGINDER TULI V. S.L. BHATIA (1997) 1 S.C. 502

when after evidence has been taken of the parties

the court was satisfied that the court has no
jurisdiction to try the case the plaint was ordered to
be presented to the proper court for trial. The High
Court in the light of the facts of the case directed the
proper court to try the suit from the stage at which it
was returned.
QUITERIA FERNANDES AND ORS. V. STATE OF GOA
AND ORS MANU/MH/2592/2015.
The honourable High Court of Bombay at Goa held that
in order to find the nature of challenge the plaint has to be
read as whole along with the prayer clause.
 Sureshkumar v. Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. 2014 (4) Mh LJ 947.

The provision under Order Rule 10 leaves a Civil

Court with no option but to return the plaint and
confers no power on the Civil Court to dismiss
the suit.
 S.R. Thermocole (EPS) Packaging Pvt.
Ltd. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co. Ltd 2015 (5) MhLj 417
Thus the principle of law in aforesaid judgment of
the Supreme Court ( Ram Ujarey vs. Union of India
1999 (1) SCC 685 ) is that limitation would not run
from the date of the order (returning the Petition)
but would run from the date on which the Petition
was returned and was made available to the
Appellant, if the Appellant was not at fault.
Shankar Govind Pathak V/s balkrishna Shankar
Joshi AIR 1926 Bom283
Where a plaint is presented to a Court which has
no jurisdiction be try the different causes of
action, it is open to the Court to retain the plaint
after striking out from it that part of it which is
beyond the jurisdiction. In such a case, the
plaintiff can file a fresh suit in the proper Court for
causes of action as struck out. It is not competent
to the Court in such a case to return the plaint for
presentation to the proper Court for causes of
action beyond jurisdiction, and to proceed on a
certified copy of the plaint for causes of action
within its jurisdiction.
Rejection of Plaint –

ORDER VII Rule 11:

 Nature of Order 7 Rule 11:

The provision contained in Order VII Rule 11

are mandatory and the court has no discretion
to reject the plaint once contigencies specified
in the provision occur. Before rejecting the
plaint, opportunity should be given to the
plaintiff to remove the ground of objection
wherever possible to do so.
 Scope of rejection of plaint:

The scope of this rule is not wider as it

does not cover all of the cases where
rejection of plaint can be done. The
court can reject the plaint where any
rule is not followed properly whose
observance is indispensable for the
ends of justice.
Q :- In what cases plaint can be rejected by a
Court ?

If the plaint is defective on any of the

grounds mentioned in Order – 7 , Rule –
11 of C.P.C , the plaint can be rejected by
the Court . Rule 11 says that the plaint
will be rejected in the following cases-
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action:

If the plaint filed by the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of
action, the Court will reject it, but in order to reject the plaint on
this ground, the Court must look at the plaint and at nothing
else.

The power to reject a plaint on this ground should be

exercised only if the Court comes to the conclusion that even if
all the allegation set out in the plaint are proved, the plaintiff
would not be entitled to any relief. In that case, the Court will
reject the plaint without issuing summons to the defendants.
 (b) Where the relief claimed
is under valued:
Where the relief Claimed by the plaintiff is under valued and the
valuation is not corrected within the time fixed or extended by the
Court, the plaint will be rejected.

Proviso to Rule 11 introduced by amending Act 104 of 1976

effective from 1st February, 1977 is suggestive of the fact
that enforcement of the rigor of these provisions to a
limited extent as indicated in the proviso, leaves it as a
discretion of the court despite the fact that the  plaintiff
might not have undervalued the suit and fails to pay the
requisite court fee within the time allowed by the court, still
the court would allow extension of time,
(c) Where it is insufficiently stamped:

Every suit is instituted by filing of the plaint one of the

requirements for the proper institution of the suit is that
the plaint must be properly stamped for the purposes of
the court fees under the court Fee Act, 1870. If the plaint
is insufficient stamp, the court reject the plaint under
order 7 rule 11 of CPC and give a sufficient time to solve
the cause of failures.
Sometimes the relief claimed by the plaintiff is properly valued,
but the plaint is written upon a paper insufficiently stamped
and the plaintiff fails to pay the requisite Court fees within the
time fixed or extended by the Court. In that case, the plaint will
be rejected.

However, if the requisite Court fee is paid within the time

extended by the Court, the suit or appeal must be treated as
instituted from the date of presentation of plaint or
memorandum of appeal for the purpose of limitation as well as
payment of Court fee (Sec. 149 C.P.C.).
An appellate Court , under this rule read with section 107
of CPC , before rejecting the plaint , must allow time to
the plaintiff to supply the deficit court fee .

If the plaintiff cannot pay the Court fee, Order 33 provides

for continuing the suit as a indigent person.
 (d) Where the Suit appears to be barred by
any Law:
Where the suit appears from the statements in the
plaint to be barred by any law, the Court will reject
the plaint. For instance, wherein a suit against the
Government, the plaint does not state that the
notice as required by Section 80 of C.P.C. has been
given the plaint will be rejected under this clause
or where proper procedure of institution of suit is
not followed such as consent of Advocate General
is not obtained under Section 92.
This rule authorizes the rejection of a plaint where
the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law . Thus , where a suit was
filed for damages for defamatory statements in
the Parliament , the suit was held to be barred by
Article 105(2) of the Constitution .
(e) Where the plaint is not filed in
duplicate.
f) where the plaintiff has not complied with
the provisions of Rule – 9
where the plaintiff fails to present the copies of
plaint along with requisite fees for service of
summons on the defendants within seven days
from the date of order of service of summons .
 g) Other grounds

The grounds that are provided under this rule for

rejection of plaint are not exhaustive. If any other
relevant ground is made out the case can be rejected.
Thus, if the plaint is signed by person not having
authority to do so and if fails to rectify the same within
the time granted by the court for curing the defect, the
plaint can be rejected. Defect in POA is curable. Rejection
not warranted.
Rule 12 Procedures on Rejection of Plaint:

Where a plaint is rejected by the Court, the Judge will pass the
order to that effect and will record the reason for it.

When a plaint is rejected under Rule-11 , the Judge must record an

order to that effect , with the reasons for such an order . A plaint can
not be rejected against some of the defendants partially and
retained against the other defendants , it must be rejected as a
whole . An order passed by Court rejecting a plaint is a decree
under section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and so the order is
appealable .
 Rule 13 Effect of Rejection of Plaint:
Is the plaintiff precluded from filing a fresh suit ?

No the plaintiff is not precluded from filing a fresh suit .

According to Rule-13 , the rejection of a plaint , on any of the
above grounds , does not , by itself , preclude the plaintiff from
presenting a fresh plaint on the same cause of action within
the period of limitation . So plaintiff can file a fresh plaint and
suit thereby on the same cause of action .

Any order rejecting a plaint is a ‘decree’ and therefore, is

appealable.
provided, it is satisfied that the  plaintiff was
prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature
and if time was not extended, it would cause grave
injustice to the  plaintiff. While in relation to sub-
clause (a) and Â(c) to (f), the law has not vested any
discretion as is indicated in the proviso which relates
to sub-clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code. 
 Important and Latest Judgment of the Apex
Court and High Court:
Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC
756, it has been held that the application for rejection of
plaintiff has to be decided based on averment in the plaint
and the pleas taken by the defendant are wholly
irrelevant at that stage and directing the defendant to file
written statement without deciding an application under
Order 7 Rule 11 is procedural irregularity touching the

exercise of jurisdiction in the court.

 D. Ramachandran v/s R.V. Janakiraman (AIR
1999 SC 1128).

“it is elementary that under Order 7 Rule 11 (a)

Civil Procedure Code, the court cannot dissect
the pleading into several parts and consider
whether each one of them discloses a cause of
action. Under the Rule, there cannot be a partial
rejection of the plaint or petition.”
Popat and Kotecha Property v/s. State Bank of
India Staff Association 2005 (7) SCC 510 : 2005
(6) Supreme 7 : 2005 (12) JT 302 : 2005 (7)
Scale 3.

“Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII applies in those cases

only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the
plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is
barred by any law in force. It is further held, there cannot
be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and
inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the
plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to
the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a
pleading has to be read as whole to ascertain its true
import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a
passage and to read it out of the context in isolation.
Although it is the substance and not merely the form that
has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it
stands without addition or subtraction of words or change
of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the
party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor
and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same
time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach
should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting
technicalities. It is not a case where the suit from
statement in the plaint can be said to be barred by law. The
statement in the plaint without addition or subtraction must
show that is barred by any law to attract application of
Order VII Rule 11”.
Sopan Sable Vs. Asst Charity Commissioner [(2004) 3
SCC 137]
it is held that the real object of Order 7 Rule 11 is to keep
out of Courts, irresponsible law suits. For the purpose of
deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of
Order 7 Rule 11, the averments in the Plaint are
germane. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 7
Rule 11 what is required is a meaningful and not a formal
reading of the Plaint and clever drafting which creates an
illusion of a cause of action ought not to detract from the
jurisdiction of the Court on an application for rejection.
 In T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal [AIR 1977 SC
2421], it has been held that if on a meaningful reading of
the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and merit-less in a
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial court
should exercise its power under order 7 Rule 11.
In the case of Premlata Nahata Vs. Chanti
Prasad Sikaria, AIR 2007 SC 1247 it has
been held that defect of mis-joinder of parties
and causes of action is not a ground for

rejection of plaint.
In M. V. Sea Success Vs. Riverpool and
Landon Steamship Projection and
Indemnity Association Ltd., AIR 2002
Bombay 151 court held that plaint can be
rejected against some of the defendants.
 Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and
others vs. Vinola Pawallkan ( AIR 1988 SC
1636).
“Order VII, Rule 11(b) contemplates correct
valuation and not approximate correct valuation
and such correct valuation of the relief has to be
determined by the Court. If the Court cannot
determine the correct valuation of the relief
claimed, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct
the valuation and, consequently, Order VII, Rule
11(b) will not be applicable. But, there may be
cases under Section 7(iv) where certain positive
objective standard may be available for the
purpose of determination of the valuation of the
relief.
If there be materials or objective standards for the
valuation of the relief, and yet the plaintiff ignores
the same and puts an arbitrary valuation, the Court,
in our opinion, is entitled to interfere under Order
VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the
Court will be in a position to determine the correct
valuation with reference to the objective standards or
materials available to it”.
In the case of Jageshwari Devi and others
Vs. Satrugan Ram, (2007) SCC 52 it has
been held that non disclosure of cause of
action is distinct from defective cause of

action.
In I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Tax Recovery Appellate
Tribunal and others, AIR 1998 SC 634
apex court held that even after framing issues

plaint can be rejected.

In the case of Pratibha Singh V/s Shanti Devi Prasad reported

in 2002 (8) Supreme 553,

on the proposition that the defects in identifying the suit

property can be cured without dismissing the case or rejecting

the plaint. The plaint cannot be rejected outright under Order 7

Rule 11 of CPC for not producing any sketch or map showing

the structures and the party should be given an opportunity to

produce such sketch or plan at the stage of production and

inspection of documents and trial.

Shri Naru B. Shetkar vs Vishram Jaya Shetkar
Alias Manohar Jaya Shetkar And Ors. (1999)
101 BOMLR 544.

On plain reading of the said provision of law, it

is apparent that the powers thereunder can be
exercised only by taking into consideration the
pleadings in the plaint. There can be no doubt
that when plaintiff sues upon a document in
his possession or power, he is bound to
produce a true copy of such document
alongwith the plaint.
Such a copy of the document would, therefore, be
a part of the plaint filed by the party and,
therefore, the contents of such a document would
naturally form part of the pleadings in the plaint.
Therefore, in such cases the Court may in exercise
of the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 take into
consideration the contents of such a document
since the document forms part of the pleadings.
THANK YOU