Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Clever Drafting — Illusory Cause of Action While ordinarily only the averments in the plaint are to be considered for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not powerless to examine whether the plaint is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action, particularly where admitted documents and undisputed facts indicate that the suit is vexatious. Limitation — Partition Suit — Long-Standing Oral Partition Where a suit for partition is instituted after several decades of an admitted or pleaded oral partition, and the plea of limitation is raised, the Court must meaningfully examine whether the suit is ex facie barred by limitation, and cannot mechanically defer the issue on the ground that limitation is always a mixed question of law and fact.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Clever Drafting — Illusory Cause of Action

While ordinarily only the averments in the plaint are to be considered for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not powerless to examine whether the plaint is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action, particularly where admitted documents and undisputed facts indicate that the suit is vexatious.

Limitation — Partition Suit — Long-Standing Oral Partition

Where a suit for partition is instituted after several decades of an admitted or pleaded oral partition, and the plea of limitation is raised, the Court must meaningfully examine whether the suit is ex facie barred by limitation, and cannot mechanically defer the issue on the ground that limitation is always a mixed question of law and fact.

Order VII Rule 11 — Scope of Enquiry — Consideration of Documents

In appropriate cases, documents referred to, relied upon, or admitted by the plaintiffs themselves, or forming part of undisputed prior proceedings, may be looked into to determine whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action or merely an illusion created by suppression of material facts.

Partition Suit — Duplication of Properties in Schedule

Duplication of schedule items and incorrect boundaries in a plaint for partition are not trivial defects and may necessitate a deeper scrutiny at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, instead of outright rejection of the application without proper examination.

Supervisory Jurisdiction — Article 227

Failure of the trial Court to examine all relevant legal aspects while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

Facts

• The plaintiffs instituted O.S. No.2 of 2023 seeking partition.

• The defendants filed I.A. No.918 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of:

  • Oral partition in 1963 acted upon for nearly 60 years;

  • Mutation and enjoyment pursuant thereto;

  • Admission of partition by plaintiffs before revenue authorities;

  • Suit being barred by limitation;

  • Duplication of properties and incorrect boundaries in the plaint schedule.

• The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that only plaint averments could be seen and that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law.

Legal Issue

Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without examining allegations of clever drafting, limitation, duplication of properties, and the relevance of admitted documents.

Findings

1. Mechanical Application of Order VII Rule 11 Disapproved
   The High Court held that the trial Court adopted an overly narrow approach by refusing to examine anything beyond the plaint, despite serious allegations of suppression and illusory cause of action.

2. Limitation Can Be Examined at Threshold
   Relying on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, the Court reiterated that:

   • Though limitation is generally a mixed question,

   • Where the plaint itself, read meaningfully, shows the suit to be hopelessly barred, rejection is permissible.

3. Clever Drafting Requires Judicial Scrutiny
   The Court emphasized that courts must “nip in the bud” suits where clever drafting conceals material facts such as prior partitions acted upon for decades.

4. Relevance of Documents
   The Court found fault with the trial Court for not examining whether the documents sought to be relied upon by the defendants could be considered for deciding the Order VII Rule 11 application.

5. Duplication of Schedule Properties
   The presence of multiple duplicated items in the plaint schedule was treated as a serious defect requiring examination and not something to be brushed aside.

Result

The impugned order was set aside, and the trial Court was directed to decide the application afresh, after giving both parties full opportunity, including on the question whether documents relied upon by the defendants can be considered.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where, on a meaningful reading of the plaint together with admitted and undisputed material, it is found that the suit is barred by limitation or is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action; a trial Court commits jurisdictional error if it dismisses such an application mechanically without examining these aspects, thereby warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.