2. In a civil suit, through a Plaint, the Plaintiff invokes the
jurisdiction of the Court and seeks relief(s) and remedies in
accordance with law.
A civil suit is based on the doctrine “Where there is a right;
there is a remedy”.
A civil suit is filed by presenting a plaint . If the plaint is
defective on any of the grounds mentioned in Order – 7 ,
Rule – 11 of C.P.C , the plaint can be rejected by the Court .

3. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases:—
(a) where 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

4. 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 provision of
Rule 9:

5. The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of
courts irresponsible law suits.
Therefore, the Order X of the Code is a tool in the hands of the
Courts by resorting to which if the Court is prima facie of the
view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the court in the
sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the
jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.
.

6. The power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
can be exercised at any stage of the suit either
before registering the plaint or after the
issuance of summons to the defendants or at
any time
before the conclusion of the trial.

7.  The provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC
does not place any restriction or limitation on
the exercise of court’s power;
 it does not either expressly or by necessary
 implication provide that power under Order VII,
 Rule11 should be exercised at a particular stage
 only. In the absence of any restriction placed by
the statutory provision, it is open to the court to
exercise that power at any stage.

8.  This position was explained by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai & Ors. vs.
State of
 Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC
557, in which, while considering Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code

9. “The trial Court can exercise the power at any
stage of the suit - before registering the plaint
or after issuing summons to the defendant at
any time before the conclusion of the trial. For
the purposes of deciding an application under
clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code, the averments in the plaint are the
germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in
the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage.”

10.  One of the foremost and main grounds for such
mandatory rejection of plaint is when the
 WHEN THE PLAINT DOES NOT DISCLOSE CAUSE
OF ACTION

11. .

12. In Bloom Dekor Ltd. vs. Subhash Himatlal
Desai & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 322, wherein a
three Judge Bench of this Court held as under:
By “cause of action” it is meant every fact, which,
if traversed, it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a
judgment of the Court, (Cooke v. Gill, 1873 LR 8
CP 107). In other words, a bundle of facts which it
is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to
succeed in the suit.”

13. In Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi(2001) 8
SCC 233, a three- Judge Bench of this Court held
that the expression ‘cause of action’ would mean
facts to be proved, if traversed, in order to
support his right to the judgment of the court
and that the function of the party is to present a
full picture of the cause of action with such
further information so as to make opposite party
understand the case he will have to meet

14.  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.
 Order VI Rule 2(1) of the Code states the basic and
cardinal rule of pleadings declares that the pleading has
to state material facts and not the evidence. It mandates
that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a
statement in a concise form of the material facts on which
the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the
case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to
proved.

15. There is distinction between 'material facts' and
'particulars'. The words 'material facts' show that
the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause
of action must be stated. Omission of a single
material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action
and the statement or plaint becomes bad
Thus It is mandatory that in order to get relief, the
plaintiff has to aver all material facts forming a
‘cause of action’. In other words, it is necessary for
the plaintiff to aver and prove in order to succeed in
the suit.

16. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application.
It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law.
Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments
made in the plaint
What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order
7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the
plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition
or subtraction.

17. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of
the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into.
The issues on merit of the matter which may arise
between the parties would not be within the realm of
the court at that stage.

18. Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 7 speaks of suit, as
appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be
decided at the time of considering an application
filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule
11 of Order VII applies in those cases only
where the statement made by the plaintiff in the
plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the
suit is barred by any law in force

19.  The statute i.e. Limitation Act is founded on the most
salutary principle of general and public policy and
 incorporates a principle of great benefit to the
community. It has, with great propriety, been termed
 a statute of repose, peace and justice. It has been said
by John Voet, with singular felicity, that controversies
are limited to a fixed period of time, lest they should
be immortal while men are mortal

20.  N. Balakrishanan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998 (7) SCC
123 it has been held that
“The statute discourages litigation by burying in one
common receptacle of all the accumulations of past times
which are unexplained and have not from lapse of time
become inexplicable.

21.  The law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy
for the redress of the legal injury so suffered.
 Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During
the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up
necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by
approaching the courts.
 So, a life-span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending
period for launching the remedy may lead to unending
uncertainty consequential anarchy.
 The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is
enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium
(it is for the general welfare that a period be put to
 litigation). The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept
alive for legislatively fixed period of time.

22. Thus from the above referances ti is to be construed
that :
Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 7 speaks of suit, as
appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by limitation. Disputed questions cannot be
decided at the time of considering an application
filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule
11 of Order VII applies in those cases only
where the statement made by the plaintiff in the
plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the
suit is barred by law of limitation.

24. The trial Court must remember that if on a
meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of
not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should
exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned
therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped
in the bud at the first hearing by examining the
party searchingly under Order X of the Code

25. What is to be determined by the Court at the stage of
deciding as to whether the plaint discloses any cause of
action or not, is to find out from the allegations of the
plaint itself as to whether a bogus, wholly vexatious or
frivolous litigation was sought to be initiated under the
garb of ingenious drafting of the plaint and to guard
against the mischief of a litigant misusing the process
of the Court, by entering into a false litigation, merely
for the purposes of harassing the other party and
obtaining undue advantage of the process of the Court
by adopting tactics and in starting sham and shady
actions

26. In Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar
Uravinmurai v. Selvaraj, reported in 2009 (2) CTC 57,
this Court (S.PALANIVELU, J), has held that
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are not
exhaustive, however Court has got inherent powers to
see that vexatious litigations are not allowed to
consume time of the Court and accordingly, court
can reject the plaint, if allegations in plaint reveals an
abuse of process of law.

27. In Seeni alias Sundarammal v. Ramasamy
Poosari, reported in 2000 (III) CTC 74, this Court
(A.RAMAN,J), has held that process of Court should
not be misused or abused but shall be used bonafidely
and properly. The Court should prevent improper use
of litigative process. The question whether litigation is
frivolous or abuse of process has to be judged from the
angle of interest of justice and public policy. As the
litigation had abused process of Court, it was held that
High Court, while exercising its power of
superintendence can step in, where there is blatant
violation of process of Court.

28. In Maria Soosai and another v. Esakkiammal, reported
in 1999-1-LW 727, this Court (S.S.SUBRAMANI, J),
relying on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, (1982 (2) AIR SCW 116),
has held thus:
"Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to
an abuse of the process of Court, especially where the
proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then
has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and
prevent the time of the public and the Court from being
wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of Courts'
discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped
or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with
circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be
sparingly exercised and exercised only in special cases.
"

29.  The High court being the superintending court over
the subordinate Courts, including Tribunals can
interfere, if there is clear abuse of process of Court,
based on the averments or pleadings of the plaint. If it
is established that the suit has been filed as an abuse
of process of Court, in order to prevent the abuse of
process of court and to avoid miscarriage of justice,
this Court has to order strike off the plaint

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cantena of decisions
has categorically ruled that where there is abuse of
process of Court or filing the suit itself is contrary to
justice and against public policy, this Court has to
exercise its power under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
If it is a frivolous or vexatious suit, as per the
pleadings of the plaint and the Court process is being
wasted, this Court has to exercise its power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off
the plaint.

31. 33. In Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited v.
R.Srinivasan, reported in 2010 (4) CTC 690, this Court (A.SELVAM, J)
has held that alternative remedy under CPC is not a bar to invoke the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In Ramiah Asari v. Kurshad Begaum, reported in 1999 (I) CTC 600,
this Court (S.S.SUBRAMANI,J), relying on the decision
in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573, held that the Court
should invoke its inherent power to strike off plaint when it comes
to the conclusion that the claim has been made only for collateral
purpose or is spurious one or of frivolous nature or improper use
of machinery of court or its continued prosecution results in
vexatious litigation.

32. . In K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as follows :
A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a
spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a
given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process
of the court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may
also amount to an abuse of the process of the court,
especially where the proceedings are absolutely
groundless. The court then has the power to stop
such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of
the public and the court from being wasted.
Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the courts discretion
whether such proceedings should be stopped or not;
and this discretion has to be exercised with
circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be
sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special
cases. The Court should also be satisfied that there is
no chance of the suit succeeding."

33. Thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions
referred to above has categorically ruled that where
there is abuse of process of Court or filing the suit itself
is contrary to justice and against public policy, this
Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the
Constitution. If it is a frivolous or vexatious suit, as per
the pleadings of the plaint and the Court process is
being wasted, this Court has to exercise its power
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike
off the plaint. When the Court is satisfied that there is
no chance of the suit succeeding, as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi a petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has
to be allowed by this Court, to prevent abuse of process
of law and to meet the ends of justice.

35. “There is no legally acceptable cause of action available to the
respondent / plaintiff, for the relief sought for in the plaint,
the suit is also barred by statute, namely the Limitation Act,
hence, this Court is of the view that there is no chance of the
suit succeeding and accordingly, to meet the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of process of court, this revision has to
be allowed and pass orders to struck off the plaint, invoking
Article 227 of the Constitution.”

36. This Hon’ble court Further held that
“it is a settled proposition of law that to exercise the
superintending power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and to struck off plaint, this Court
should come to a conclusion, that the suit is an abuse of
process of law, based on the plaint averments and the
admission made by the plaintiff and to decide the same,
the provision under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has also got
relevancy.”

37. In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill (1982 (3) SCC
487),As was observed by this Court only a part of
the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of
action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be
rejected.
averments in the plaint as a whole have to be
seen to find out whether clause
(d) of Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable.

38. There cannot be any compartmentalization,
dissection, segregation and inversions of the
language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If
such a course is adopted it would run counter to
the cardinal canon of interpretation according to
which a pleading has to be read as a whole to
ascertain its true.
It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a
passage and to read it out of the context in
isolation. Although it is the substance and not
merely the form that has to be looked into, the
pleading has to be construed as it stands without
addition or subtraction of words or change of its
apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party
concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and
terms of his pleadings taken as a whole.

39.  Thus from the above discussions it can be concluded
that the Plaint cannot be rejected in part but has to be
rejected as a whole.

40. There is no bar in invoking the powers of the
court under Order VII Rule 11 for rejecting the
Plaint against one or some of the Defendants
only if the Plaint does not disclose any cause of
action against that or those Defendants.

41. In any event, rejection of the plaint under Rule
11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from
presenting a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13.
But the suit itself is dismissed under the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 as vexatious
and frivolous the plaint cannot be represented
freshly.