Remedy available to party whose application for rejection of plaint is rejected

Order rejecting application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of 

CPC for rejection of plaint

63. When a claim for rejection of plaint under Order VII, 

Rule 11(a) of CPC on the ground that if fails to disclose cause of 

action is rejected by the Trial Court, it is the remedy of revision 

under Section 115, which becomes available and there is no 

question of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under 

Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of the 

power under Order VII, Rule 11(a), the plaint can be rejected only 

on the ground that there is a failure to plead material facts 

constituting the cause of action. Absence of a single material fact 

entails the consequences of rejection of plaint. 

64. When an application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of 

CPC is rejected, the Court is bound to record the finding on such a 

plea holding in clear terms that there is or there is no failure to 




plead the material facts alleged. When such a plea is raised at the 

initial stage, a wise lawyer may move an application for 

amendment of the plaint incorporating such a plea if there subsists 

a period of limitation instead of trying to justify it. The Court may 

also hold that all the material facts are pleaded or that there is no 

failure to plead a single material fact. In all such situations, the 

High Court would be slow to interfere in exercise of its 

jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC for the reasons that :

(a) under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of CPC, it is the 

defendant, who invokes the jurisdiction of the Trial 

Court, and hence there is no question of 

challenging the order of such rejection on the 

ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. Unless a 

ground of exceeding the jurisdiction is made out in 

rejecting such application for the reasons not 

germane or a case is made out on the ground of 

exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material 

irregularity, the jurisdiction under Section 115 of 

CPC may not be exercised;

(b) when there is a failure to record the finding 

Bombay High Court

proviso to Section 115 of CPC, which requires the 

High Court to pass an order disposing of the suit or 

proceedings before the Trial Court. After 

recording of the finding of failure to plead a single 

material fact by upholding the objection under 

Order VII, Rule 11(a) of CPC, the Revisional 

Court will have to reject the plaint, which will 

amount to a 'decree' within the meaning of sub-
section (2) of Section 2 of CPC. This shall take 

away the right of first appeal before the District 

Judge, or second appeal before the High Court, to 

the plaintiff;

(c) the question as to whether all the facts 

pleaded are material facts or that there is a failure 

to plead a single material fact, can be more 

conveniently and effectively be adjudicated in a 

wider jurisdiction of a regular statutory appeal, if 

the ultimate decision in the suit goes against the 

defendant, and to urge that no amount of evidence 

  

can cure the defect in the pleading of material 

facts; and

(d) if in spite of rejection of an application under 

Order VII, Rule 11(a) of CPC, the suit is ultimately 

dismissed on merits, then there may not be any 

occasion for the defendant to challenge such order. 

However, if the plaintiff prefers an appeal against 

such decree, then it is open for the defendant to 

raise a cross-objection challenging the findings 

recorded on the application under Order VII, 

Rule 11(a) of CPC and acted upon by the Trial 

Court. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5775 OF 2012
AND
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.482 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013

Walchandnagar Industries Limited, Vs   Indraprastha Developers,

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 25-9-2013
Citation;2014(2) ALLMR 550

Bench: R K Deshpande J.

Link to the judgement is : http://bit.ly/1i4ougF - 

Print Page