AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Court:-
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated July 16, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit no. 1815 of 2025.
By the order impugned, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected.
The opposite party filed a suit for declaration that the opposite party being the owner of the suit remises has every manner of right to the peaceful use and enjoyment thereof without any obstruction and/or hindrance by the defendants including their men, agents and associates in any manner whatsoever otherwise than by due process of law and for further declaration that purported letter dated 11th August, 2025 issued by the defendant is harrasive, motivated, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect or further effect to the purported letter dated 11th August, 2025 and for other reliefs.
The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint, which stood rejected by the impugned order.
Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial judge rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a totally non-speaking order. He submits that the suit based on an illusory cause of action should be nipped in the bud and in support of such contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 467 and Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashekar & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793.
After going through the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court finds that the petitioner sought to contend that there is an earlier suit pending before this Hon’ble Court being C.S. No. 842 of 1989 and such fact has not been disclosed in the plaint. After going through the said application, this Court finds that several orders passed in C.S. 842 of 1989 has been referred to in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the plaint shall be rejected in a case where (a) it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.
Mr. Gupta, submits that though the plaintiff claimed to be member of an association, but the memorandum of such association has not been disclosed in the plaint and he also submits that being a member of the association, the plaintiff was aware of the decision taken in the Annual General Meeting, which fact has also been suppressed in the plaint. He further submits that the plaint has been very cleverly drafted. Mr. Gupta submits that the petitioner has in fact invoked Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is now judicially settled that if upon a meaningful reading of the plaint the cause of action is not disclosed or there is an illusion of cause of action, the plaint can be rejected.
The plaint of the instant suit proceeds on the basis that the sister concern of the plaintiff is a lawful owner of an office space. The cause of action of the instant suit appears to be the purported letter dated 11th August, 2025 stated to be the final notice for payment of outstanding electricity charges, maintenance charges, additional maintenance charges, charges and other outstanding charges in respect of the first floor occupied area of plaintiff. It has been further stated that the allegation contained in this letter that the current dues upto August 11, 2025 is Rs.6,13,257/-. It has also been stated in the plaint that by the said letter it was threatened that electricity and water supply line will be disconnected. The plaintiff stated that in the letter dated 13th August, 2025, it has been stated that they have been paying maintenance charges at the agreed rate and there is no iota of evidence as to when any maintenance charges etc. have been increased. The plaintiff contends that insofar as the supply of electricity is concerned, the plaintiff is obliged to pay electricity bills on the basis of an actual consumption and not as per the will of the defendants. In the plaint it has also been further stated that the plaintiff has paid and is still ready and willing to pay maintenance chares and electricity charge on the fair rate as paid by the plaintiff and not as per malafide demand of the defendants as per letter dated 11th August, 2025.
Upon bare reading of the plaint, it appears to this Court that issuance of the letter dated 11th August, 2025 is the cause of action for filing the instant suit. The plaintiff contends that the demand made in the said letter dated 11th August, 2025 is an illegal demand.
Mr. Gupta learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in course of his argument, strenuously contended that several decisions taken in the annual general meeting has been suppressed in the plaint. He further submits that pendency of the earlier suit pending before this Hon’ble Court has also been suppressed.
The issue of suppression cannot be decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is well-settled that at the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code only the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto must be considered. The case of the defendant cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11.
There is no quarrel of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam (supra) that if on an meaningful reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in paragraph 5 of the said reports, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the learned Judge has to see that the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is fulfilled.
As observed hereinbefore, the plaint of the instant suit discloses a cause of action. To the mind of this Court, the ground under Order 7 Rule 11(a) has not been fulfilled.
In Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution (supra) the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant therein from creating any third party interest over the suit schedule property, based on an alleged agreement to sell executed by the respondents therein in respect of the suit schedule property on 10th April, 2018 for a sale consideration of Rs.9 crore for which, they claim to have paid Rs.75 lakh as an advance payment. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant was trying to manipulate the title deeds of the suit schedule property with an intention to alienate or dispose of the same to third parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there was no privity of contract between respondents and the appellant. The agreement for sale is not between the parties to the suit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the respondents have no legal right that can be enforced against the appellant as their claim is impliedly barred by virtue of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and their remedy, if any, lies against their proposed vendors. The plaint averments remain silent regarding the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents, which alone can confer a valid right on them to file a suit against the appellant. Another remedy available to them is to institute a suit against the vendor for specific performance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that the respondents therein were not in possession of the property. Whereas the appellant’s possession since 1905 is admitted in the plaint itself and in such case the plaintiffs were in possession and the defendant is in settled possession for over a century, a suit for bare injunction by a proposed transferee is clearly not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that there is a defect in the plaint with regard to identity of the property. In the light of the aforesaid averments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to reject the plaint and also passed certain directions. The said decision being distinguishable of fact cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in the case in hand.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the learned trial judge was right in holding that the grounds on the basis of which the defendant/petitioner prayed for rejection of plaint do not come within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
For such reason, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this civil revision application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.