This document provides a summary of 28 legal authorities and judgments related to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the rejection of plaints. The key points made by the various judgments are: 1) the maintainability of a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 must be evaluated based only on the pleadings in the plaintiff without considering other evidence; 2) a plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses a cause of action or merely because the plaintiff may not succeed; and 3) the valuation and court fees provided by the plaintiff in their plaint should generally be accepted unless found to be unreasonable.

1. A P RANDHIR
JUDGMENT
ON
C P C
ORDER 7 RULE 11
[ REJECTION OF PLAINT]

2. A P RANDHIR
Sr
No
uthority Principal Laid Down
1. Bhairy & Anr V/s Board of
Reveny of Rajathan ajamer
2013­3 CCC 14 RAJ
Hon'ble Rajsthan high Court
It is trite that maintainability of the suit with
referce to order 7 Rule 11 CPC has to be
evaluated on the basis of pleading of plaintiff
without anything more.
2. Poonam Chand and Anr V/s
Phoola Ram.
2013­4 CCC RAj
Hon'ble Rajsthan high Court
At the time of decideing suit facts and averments
and grounds mentioned in plaint can be seen and
no other material can be taken into account for
the purpose of deciding application filed under
Order 7, Rule 11 of Cpc
3. Popat and Kotecha property V/s
State bank of india Staff
Association.
2005­7­SCC 510
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Held, Disputed questions cannot be decidec at
the time of Considering and application filed
under order 7 Rule 11 CPC ­observations by the
Division Bench where incorrect assuming that
the basi issue suit was only non­exection of
leased dee­ other impotat claims were denied­ it
is not a case wher the suit from statement in the
Plaint can be said to be barred by law.
4. Anantha Naicken Rama V/s
Vasudev Naickan and others
AIR 1967 Kerala 85
Hon'ble Kerala High Court
CPC o.7.R.11,m Court fees on Plaint found
insufficient­ proper procedure­ Court Shold not
dismiss Suit on merits without calling upon
plaintiff to pay additional Court fees­ Failure to
suppy deficient court fees – plaint has to be
rejected
5. Bal kishan & another V/s
ManojKumar & others
AIR 2014 Noc 343 Raj
Hon'ble Rajsthan high Court
CPC O.7 Rule 11 (A) Is question of Fact – has to
be decided after evidence is led by parties on
issue – plaint cannot be rejected on that ground
6 Balasaria Construction P Ltd
V/s Hanuman Seva trust
2006­5­ SCC 658
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Held suit could not be dismissed as barred by
llimitation wihtout proper pleadings , Framing of
an issue of limitation and reording of Evidence­
Question of law and Fact – Ex Facie on reading
of plaint it can no be held that suit to be barred
by time.
7. Tara Devi V/s Shri Thakur
Radha Krishana maharaj
1987­2­GLH 381
Hon'ble Supreme Court
CPC O 7 Rule 10 – Suit for declartion with
consequestial relief­ Plaintiff is free to make his
own estimation and valuation of the Reliefs
sought­ Such valuation for the purpose of
jurisdiction and Court fee, ordinarily to be
accepted unless the court finds that the valuation

3. A P RANDHIR
is arbitrary , unreasonable and that the claim is
demonstratively undervalued.
8. State of orrisa V/s M/s Klockner
and Company
Hon'ble Supreme Court
CPC O 7 R 11 A , Rejeciton of plaint­ Validity­
Case of the applicant is that plaintiff has no
cause of action­ Application specifically not
pleading that plaint does not disclose any cause
of action­ Court Cannot maintaining distinction
between plea that there was no Cause of action
for suit and plea that plaint does not disclose
cause of action and Rejecting plaint­ Rejection of
plaint is not proper
9. Taher bhai Fidaali Khambhati
V/s Abadin Fidaali khambhait
1978 GLR 786
Hon'ble Gujarat high Court
Court Fees Act­section 7 (iv)(f)­Bombay Court
Fees act Sec (iv) (i) – Administration suit­ Such
administrative suit classifed as suit for account –
Therefore liable to Court fees under Sec 6(iv)(i)
under Bombay Court fees Act
10. Filoma Pathubhai Patel & ors
V/s Amblal D Bhagat
1987 GLH UJ 21
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
Valuation for the purpose of court Fees would
automatically govern the valuation for the
purpose of Jurisdiction
11 Maliben Kamabhai Harijan V/s
LR. S of Late Jagivan Nanji
2003­3­GLH
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
When monetary evalution is the same is not
susceptible, litigant at his own choise can value
the Suit for the purpose of Court fees.
12 Gujarat Industrial Dev.
Corporation V?s Shankarbhai
Devijibhai Shiyania
2003­1­GLH 116
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
Held in revisions that suits were not suscetiple to
monetary evalution­ Nature of the suit should be
adjudge from the pleading in the plain and not
from the conetions raised in the Written
Statemnet.
13. Tara Devi V/s Shri Thakur
Radha Krishana maharaj
1987­2­GLH 381
Hon'ble Supreme Court
CPC O 7 Rule 10 – Suit for declartion with
consequestial relief­ Plaintiff is free to make his
own estimation and valuation of the Reliefs
sought­ Such valuation for the purpose of
jurisdiction and Court fee, ordinarily to be
accepted unless the court finds that the valuation
is arbitrary , unreasonable and that the claim is
demonstratively undervalued.
14 M/s Commericial Aviation And
Travel Company V/s Vimla
Pannalal
AIR 1988 SC 1636
Hon'ble Supreme Court
In Suit for the acconts it is almost impossible for
the plaintiff to value the relief correectly, Court
has to accept plaintiff's Valuation tentatively.

4. A P RANDHIR
15 Madusudan Dayhyabhai v/s
Manilal Harilal And Another
AIR 1963 Guj 291
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court`
Hence Value of jurisdiction purposes is same as
for Court Fees
16 Chhagan Karsan V/s Bhagzanji
Punja
1972 GLR 835
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
Held Plaintiff is at liberty to put his own
valuation on plain where subject matter of suit
does not admit of being satisfatorily Valued.
17. State of Gujarat V/s patel
Parshottambhai Kukabhai and
Ors
1995­2­GLH 458
Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 S. 6 (iv) (i)
Comutation of Court fees – Suit for declartion
valuation of suit is required to be based on the
averments and allegations made in the plaint
and not on the basis of the contention raised in
the written statement
18. Inderlal Panwarmal v/s
Khialdas shewaran and other
AIr 1971 Gujarat 86
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
Court fees provision applicable to a case must be
fixed having regard to the substance and not the
form of a plaint
19 Kesho mathon and others V/s
Mahton and others
AIr 1983 Patna 67
Hon'ble Patna High Court
Valuation given by plaintiff in the plaint is final
and conclusive­ Court has no jurisdiction to
interfere with such valuation on ground that it is
unreasonble.
20 H.P State Electricity Board V/s
Virendra Hotel and Allied
Indutries P Ltd
2000­9­SCC 738
Hon'ble Supreme Court
High court has decided the question of territorail
jurisdiciton of the court without giving any
reason in which the appellant is vitally intersted.
21. Sr. RAthnavarmaraja V/s Vimla
AIR 1961 Sc 1299
Hon'ble Supreme Court
CPC S.115 – Question of Court fees on plaint
decided against defendants contention­
defendant has no grievane and has no right to
revision
22. Siddhartha Gautam Rand V/s
Sarverwari Samooh Kushtha
Sevaram
AIR 1995 Allaahabad 52
CPC. S. 115 & Court Fees Act S.7(iv­A) Payment
of court fees insufficienty – Decision as to –
Defendant has no legal right to challenge
insufficiency of court fees
23 Mayar V/s Owners And paties
vessel M V Fortune Express
and ors
AIR 2006 Sc 1828
Hon'ble Supreme Court
CPC O 7 R 11 ­Plaint cannot be rejected on basis
of allegation made by defendant in his written
statement­ Requires determines by court – Mere
fact that in opion of Judge , Plaintiff may not
Suceed cannot be ground to reject plaint.

5. A P RANDHIR
24 Mohan Lal Sukhdia UniV/s
Miss Priya soloman
AIR 1999 Raj 102
Hon'ble Raj High Court
CPC. O7 R11 D Applicability – Rejection of
plaint­ Application on ground that plaint is
barred by limitation­ Statement made by
plaintiff in plaint that suit was within limitation
as the cause of action arose on particulat date­
Does not attact provision on O 7 R. 11 Moreover
defendant is not precluded in raising plea of
limitation in his Written statement.
25 Ranjeet Mal V/s Poonal Chand
and ors
AIR 1983 Raj 1
Hon'ble Raj High Court
CPC. O7 R.11 A – Rejection of on ground of Non
disclusure of cause of action­ Court has to finally
decide question of law raised in plaint and
controvered by defendant
26 Britisha Airways V/s Art Works
Export Ltd
AIR 1986 Calcutta 120
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court
CPC. O & R11 A Rejection of Plaint­ plea that
there is no cause of action for suit­ not a ground
for rejetion of Plaint
27 Premananada V/s Dhirendra
nath Ganguly & ors
AIR ­27­1950 CalCutta 397
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court
The Question as to what Court fees are payble on
a plaint has to be decided on the allegation in the
plaint and the nature of the relief claimed.
Whatever may transpire in the evidence the
plaint remains same until and unless is same
28 Hon'ble Apex Curtreported
in(2005) 5 SCC 548 in the
case of N.V. Srinivasa
Murthy and ors. v.
Mariyamma (dead) by
proposed LRs and ors.
Held, under O.7 R.11, the court has to
consider only the averments in the plaint. At
the same time, the courts are obliged to
consider and read in a meaningful manner
the averments in the plaint particularly the
cause of action and to consider whether it is
hit by any statutory provision including the
limitation. As referred to hereinabove, by
skilful drafting or misleading facts the party
may not be allowed to stretch the limitation
so as to create an impression that the suit is
within the limitation. It is at that stage the
courts are obliged to consider the averments
closely so that the suit which is filed as an

6. A P RANDHIR
abuse of the process of the court as a bogus
irresponsible litigation is not entertained.
29 POONAMBHAI
SHANABHAI VALAND­
DECD. & Versus
HASMUKHBHAI
BACHUBHAI PARSANA,
SECOND APPEAL NO. 193
of 2016 31/01/2017 &
Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel
& ors. (supra) Hon'ble High
Court of Gujarat, reported in
2013 (1) GLR 398
the registration of document is the deemed
notice for the purpose of knowledge. court also
observed that when the suit is barred by
limitation on a plain reading of the plaint it
can be dismissed as it cannot be brought
within limitation by vague averments
30 AIR 2011 (NOC) 260 P & H –
Para 24.
O.7 R.11 – Rejection of Plaint – the case must fall
within the four corners of the provisions of O.7
R.11 – truthfulness of narration of facts in Plaint
/ WS are not to be judged at the stage of rejection
of Plaint –
31 (2008) 2 Punj LR (D) 41, 48
(Del), (2008) 10 SCC 97, 103;
(2005) 10 SCC 760, 778.
Plaint founded on pleas unsupported by any
material on record, the Plaint does not disclose
any cause of action, shall be rejected under
O7R11,
32 (2004) 3 SCC 137, 147. Object of O7R11 – Keep out of Courts
irresponsible law Suits. Order 10 is a tool in the
hands of Court to effectuate object behind
O7R11. The Plaint can be rejected even without
intervention of the Defendant. The duty is cast
upon the Court to perform its obligation.
33 A 2009 (NOC) 915 (Ker) (DB). A plaint can be rejected under O7R11 for
institutional defects.

7. A P RANDHIR
34 2009 AIHC 1455, 1457 (Gau). If the Plaint is manifestly meritless or vexatious,
the Court can reject Plaint under O7 R 11 even
before the Defendant has filed his WS.
35 (2003) 1 SCC 557; A 1999 All
109, 125; A 2008 (NOC) 1248
(Mad); (2008) 1 CTC 527; A
2004 Gau 107; A 2009 (NOC)
915 (Del) (DB).
Plaint can be rejected at any stage. Application
by party not necessary.
36 (2004) 3 SCC 137; (2003) 1 SCC
557.
The trial Court can exercise powers under O 7 R
11 at any stage of the Suit.
37 (1998) 2 SCC 70, 76, 77. Power to reject Plaint can be exercised even after
framing of issues and when matter is posted for
evidence,
38 (2004) 3 SCC 137;
(2003) 1 SCC 557;
(2008) 3 Cal LT 99, 105;
(2008) 68 AIC 516, 518 (Kant);
(2008) 5 Andh LT 520, 530;
(2008) 68 AIC 677 (AP);
(2009) 4 CTC 773, 778 (Mad)
(DB);
A 2009 Del 129;
A 2009 Raj 142, 143;
(2007) 1 Punj LR 445 (P & H);
(2007) 2 Punj LR 50 Del;
(2009) 83 AIC 656 (Mad) (DB);
For deciding application under O7R11 (a) to (d),
the averments in the Plaint are germane. Pleas
taken in WS are wholly irrelevant at that stage.

8. A P RANDHIR
(2009) 3 ALJ (DOC) 116;
(2008) 72 All LR 626 (All) (DB);
(2009) 6 Mah LJ 157 (Bom)
(DB);
A 2008 (NOC) 1225 Cal;
(2008) 3 Cal LT 99, 105.
39 AIR 2009 Pat 71. Orders passed under O.7 R.11 are a decree –
40 1994 GCD 3272, 3279 Guj (DB) An assertion in Plaint contrary to Statutory law,
plaint does not disclose cause of action – would
be rejected –
THANK YOU