The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has upheld a Trial Court’s decision to reject an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), reiterating that a plaint can only be rejected based on the averments made within it and the documents filed by the plaintiff. Justice Ashish Shroti, while presiding over the Gwalior Bench, observed that documents relied upon by the defendant, including orders from previous suits not filed by the plaintiff, cannot be used to terminate a suit at the threshold.
Background of the Case
The dispute involves land bearing Survey No. 415/2 in Village Hingona Khurd, Morena. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit (RCS-A No. 45/2022) seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction against the petitioners (defendants).
Upon receiving notice, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, praying for the rejection of the plaint. They argued that the suit was barred under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC because an earlier suit for the same relief and property had already been dismissed as abated on August 18, 2021. The Trial Court, on September 13, 2022, rejected this application, holding that the issue of res judicata involved mixed questions of law and fact.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiffs had previously filed an identical suit based on adverse possession which abated due to the failure to bring legal heirs on record. It was contended that the present suit is a “meaningless litigation” and that the plaintiffs had used “clever drafting” to project a fresh cause of action to bypass the bar under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC.
Conversely, the counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the issue of res judicata cannot be decided without evidence. They maintained that the current suit is based on a distinct and subsequent cause of action arising from an “out of court settlement” that occurred during the pendency of the previous suit, which the defendants subsequently violated.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court examined the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020). The Court noted that while the power to terminate a civil action at the threshold is “drastic,” it must be exercised when a suit is manifestly vexatious or lacks a cause of action.
Key observations made by the Court include:
- Scrutiny of Plaint: “A duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint… read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.”
- Defendant’s Evidence Inadmissible at Threshold: The Court emphasized that “the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to.”
- Exclusion of Defendant’s Documents: Justice Shroti pointed out that the petitioners relied on the plaint and the abatement order of the earlier suit. However, as these were filed by the defendants and not the plaintiffs, they could not be considered at this stage. “Therefore, the same cannot be looked into for purposes of decision of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC,” the Court noted.
The Court further observed that the plaintiffs had pleaded an out-of-court settlement in paragraph 7 of their plaint. The Court remarked:
“Thus, if the factum of out of court settlement is established by plaintiffs in the present suit, then alone they can have a fresh cause of action, else the suit would be barred under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC.”
Decision
The High Court found the Trial Court’s decision to be justified, concluding that the maintainability of the suit is a matter of trial. The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order dated September 13, 2022.
However, the Court directed the Trial Court to “try the issue of maintainability of present suit by framing suitable preliminary issue.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Laxminarayan Sharma and Others vs. Smt. Sarvati Devi and Others
- Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 1168 of 2023
- Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashish Shroti
- Date of Order: March 17, 2026
