Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that a document relied on, here an unregistered supplementary lease deed, is inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Whether the document can be received, for instance for a collateral purpose under the proviso to Section 49, is a matter for trial. The Court restored the landlords' eviction and arrears suit.
In October 2011 the appellants leased land to the respondents for 33 years under a registered deed, at a monthly rent of Rs 92,550 with annual increases, for a school. When the lessees needed an equitable mortgage of the land for a bank loan, the parties executed an unregistered supplementary lease deed dated 15 February 2013, which revised the rent to Rs 9 per sq. ft. of constructed area. The landlords said this deed continued the original lease and needed no registration.
In 2022 the landlords served a Section 106 notice and sued for eviction and arrears computed under the supplementary deed. The lessees, who denied executing it, sought rejection of the plaint. The trial court refused on 24 January 2023; the High Court in revision held the unregistered deed inadmissible on 17 December 2024 and remanded the Order VII Rule 11 application for fresh decision without considering that deed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a court reject a plaint at the threshold because a document on which it rests is unregistered and allegedly inadmissible?
Plaint Averments Versus Questions of Evidence
The Court described rejection of a plaint as a drastic step: only the averments in the plaint and the documents filed with it may be considered, and the defence is irrelevant at that stage (citing P.V. Guru Raj Reddy, (2015) 02 SC CK 0051). The plaint pleaded that the supplementary deed did not require registration; accepting the defendants' contrary position would mean ignoring those averments and looking beyond the plaint.
Under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a collateral transaction not required to be registered. Whether the plaintiffs can rely on that proviso is a question for trial, and a party cannot be shut out before leading evidence. The High Court's finding of inadmissibility before any evidence was led was therefore contrary to law. The Court held that the plaint discloses a cause of action and is not barred by any law.
What the Court Actually Held
- Inadmissibility of an unregistered document is not a ground to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11.
- Only the plaint and its accompanying documents can be considered; the defence stand is irrelevant at that stage.
- Reliance on the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act is a question for trial.
- The High Court's order was set aside, the Order VII Rule 11 application rejected and the suit directed to be decided on merits, with no view expressed on the deed's admissibility.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It prevents defendants from converting evidentiary objections into threshold rejection pleas.
- It keeps the Section 49 proviso available to plaintiffs until evidence is led.
- It reinforces the narrow scope of Order VII Rule 11.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Plaintiffs
- Plead clearly why a document needs no registration or is relied on for a collateral purpose.
- Resist Order VII Rule 11 applications that depend on the defence version.
For Defendants
- Raise admissibility objections at trial, when the document is tendered.
- Reserve Order VII Rule 11 for cases where the plaint itself shows no cause of action or a legal bar.
Key Takeaways
- Read the plaint, not the defence.
- Admissibility is a trial question.
- Section 49 proviso can be tested only on evidence.
- Rejection of a plaint is a drastic remedy.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. It expressed no view on admissibility and left that to the trial court.
It decided admissibility before any evidence was led, which the Court held was contrary to law at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.
The suit for eviction and arrears will be tried on merits.
Conclusion
The judgment keeps evidentiary disputes where they belong, at trial, and confines Order VII Rule 11 to what the plaint itself shows.
Practical takeaway: An objection that a document is unregistered is an objection to evidence; it rarely justifies throwing out the plaint at the threshold.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →