Sr No Plaintiff authority Principal Laid Down

1. Bhairy & Anr V/s Board of Reveny of Rajathan ajamer2013-3 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.2013-4 CCC RAjHon'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.2005-7-SCC 510Hon'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 Diviion Bench where incorrect assuming that the basi issue suit was only non-exection 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 othersAIR 1967 Kerala 85Hon'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

1. Bal kishan & another V/s ManojKumar & othersAIR 2014 Noc 343 RajHon'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

2 Balasaria Construction P Ltd V/s Hanuman Seva trust2006-5- SCC 658Hon'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.

3. Tara Devi V/s Shri Thakur Radha Krishana maharaj1987-2-GLH 381Hon'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.

4. State of orrisa V/s M/s Klockner and CompanyHon'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

1. Taher bhai Fidaali Khambhati V/s Abadin Fidaali khambhait 1978 GLR 786Hon'ble Gujarat high Court

Court Fees Act-section 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

2. Filoma Pathubhai Patel & ors V/s Amblal D Bhagat1987 GLH UJ 21Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

Valuation for the purpose of court Fees would automatically govern the valuation for the purpose of Jurisdiction

3.` Maliben Kamabhai Harijan V/s LR. S of Late Jagivan Nanji2003-3-GLHHon'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.

4. Gujarat Industrial Dev. Corporation V?s Shankarbhai Devijibhai Shiyania2003-1-GLH 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.

5. S. Rm Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa V/s Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan ChettiarAIr 1958 SC245(1)

6. Tara Devi V/s Shri Thakur Radha Krishana maharaj1987-2-GLH 381Hon'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.

7. M/s Commericial Aviation And Travel Company V/s Vimla Pannalal AIR 1988 SC 1636Hon'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.

8 Madusudan Day\hyabhai v/s Manilal Harilal And AnotherAIR 1963 Guj 291Hon'ble Gujarat High Court`

Hence Value of jurisdiction purposes is same as for Court Fees

9. Chhagan Karsan V/s Bhagzanji Punja1972 GLR 835Hon'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.

10. State of Gujarat V/s patel Parshottambhai Kukabhai and Ors

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

1995-2-GLH 458 made in the plaint and not on the basis of the contention raised in the written statement

11. Inderlal Panwarmal v/s Khialdas shewaran and otherAIr 1971 Gujarat 86Hon'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

12 Kesho mathon and others V/s Mahton and othersAIr 1983 Patna 67Hon'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.

13 H.P State Electricity Board V/s Virendra Hotel and Allied Indutries P Ltd2000-9-SCC 738Hon'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.

14. Sr. RAthnavarmaraja V/s Vimla AIR 1961 Sc 1299Hon'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

15. Siddhartha Gautam Rand V/s Sarverwari Samooh Kushtha SevaramAIR 1995 Allaahabad 52

CPC. S. 115 & Court Fees Act S.7(iv-A) Payment of court fees insufficienty – Decision as to – Defendant has no legal right to challenge insufficiency of court fees

16 Mayar V/s Owners And paties vessel M V Fortune Express and orsAIR 2006 Sc 1828Hon'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.

17 Mohan Lal Sukhdia UniV/s Miss Priya soloman AIR 1999 Raj 102Hon'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.

18 Ranjeet Mal V/s Poonal Chand and orsAIR 1983 Raj 1Hon'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

19 Britisha Airways V/s Art Works Export Ltd AIR 1986 Calcutta 120Hon'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

20 Premananada V/s Dhirendra nath Ganguly & orsAIR -27-1950 CalCutta 397

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

Hon'ble Calcutta High Court evidence the plaint remains same until and unless is same

Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11Rejection of Plaint – O7 R11

Plaint founded on pleas unsupported by any material on record, the Plaint does not

disclose any cause of action, shall be rejected under O7R11, (2008) 2 Punj LR (D)

41, 48 (Del), (2008) 10 SCC 97, 103; (2005) 10 SCC 760, 778.

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. (2004) 3 SCC 137, 147.

A plaint can be rejected under O7R11 for institutional defects. A 2009 (NOC) 915

(Ker) (DB).

The Court will not wait for disposal of Application made under O7R11 till the

framing of issues, A 2009 Jhar 86, 87.

If the Plaint is manifestly meritless or vexatious, the Court can reject Plaint under

O7R11 even before the Defendant has filed his WS. 2009 AIHC 1455, 1457 (Gau).

Plaint can be rejected at any stage. Application by party not necessary. (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).

The trial Court can exercise powers under O7R11 at any stage of the Suit. (2004) 3

SCC 137; (2003) 1 SCC 557.

Where the Suit is not maintainable, the HC can under invoke jurisdiction under

Article 227 and reject the Plaint. (2008) 2 MLJ 646, 652 (Mad).

Clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action, (1998) 2 SCC 70, 77, 81.

Defect in POA is curable. Rejection not warranted. A 2006 AP 337, 343.

An order rejecting Plaint is appelable in terms of section 2(2) of CPC and not

Revisable. (2002) AIHC 283, 285 (AP); (2003) Andh LD 105 (AP).

O7R11 and O14 R2 – Court has power to decide its own jurisdiction and questions

regarding the maintainability of the Suit. (2003) 8 SCC 134, 143.

Order under O7R11 is a decree. (1996) AIHC 998, 999 (Cal) (DB); 2000 All LJ

2357 (All).

Power to reject Plaint can be exercised even after framing of issues and when matter

is posted for evidence, (1998) 2 SCC 70, 76, 77.

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.

(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);

(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.

Orders passed under O.7 R.11 are a decree – AIR 2009 Pat 71.

The decision given by a court on merits amounts to a decree and as such appeal

against such decision can be filed. However, no appeal can be field against a

decision not given on merits but on some technical point and against such decision

only revision can be filed – Rameshwar versus Neeraj Kumar – (1996) 3 Civil LJ

861 (Pat)

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 – AIR 2011 (NOC) 260 P & H – Para

24.

Summary dismissal – (2011) 6 SCC 456

O.7 R.11(a) – rejection of Plaint – cause of action – non existence of – Application

rejected – AIR 2011 Guj 27 – Paras 15, 17.

O.7 R.11 – rejection for want of cause of action – courts shall look into Plaint and

not on W.S. – Application for Rejection rejected – AIR 2011 Mad 136 – Para 10.

O.7 R.11(d) – Suit barred by law – AIR 2011 Mad 136 – Paras 15, 16, 23.

O.7 R.11 – Colgate Palmolive versus Rajendra Vinayak – 2012 (2) All MR 225 –

Para 12

Mayar HK Ltd & Ors vs Owners & Parties vessel MV Fortune Express & Ors 2006

3 SCC 100

PK Palanisamy Vs & Anr 2009 4 LW 75

Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria AIR 2007 SC 1247

Saleem Bhai & Ors v St of Maharashtra & Ors 2003 1 SCC 557

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors Vs Asst Charity Com and Ors AIR 2004 SC 1801

Sudhir G Angur & Ors v M Sanjeev & Ors AIR 2006 SC 351

T Arivandandam vs TV Satyapal & Anr AIR 1977 SC 2421

O.7 R.11 – 2012 (2) All MR 225 – 12

O.7 R.11 – 2012 (2) All MR 806 – 10

O.7 R.11 – AIR 2012 Raj 39(B) – Paras 12, 13

O.7 R.11 – AIR 2012 Raj 39(B) – Paras 12, 13

O.7 R.11 – 2012 (2) All MR 225 – 12

O.7 R.11 – 2012 (2) All MR 806 – 10

O.7 R.11 – 2013 (1) All MR 716

An assertion in Plaint contrary to Statutory law, plaint does not disclose cause of

action – would be rejected – 1994 GCD 3272, 3279 Guj (DB)