Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC 1908
Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC 1908
The rejection of a plaint is a significant hurdle for a plaintiff in a legal proceeding. It can occur due to various reasons, such as the plaintiff's failure to comply with procedural requirements or the lack of a valid cause of action. One of the primary reasons for the rejection of a plaint is the suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. In this article, we will discuss the rejection of a plaint for suppression of facts and examine some case laws related to it.
Suppression of Facts
The Indian legal system requires a plaintiff to disclose all the material facts relevant to their case in the plaint. Material facts are those facts that are essential to the plaintiff's cause of action or defence. The disclosure of material facts is crucial because it enables the defendant to understand the case against them fully. Suppression of material facts by a plaintiff can lead to an unfair advantage and defeat the principles of natural justice.
Rejection of Plaint for Suppression of Facts
When a plaintiff suppresses material facts in the plaint, it is considered to be an abuse of the court's process. The defendant has a right to know all the material facts to defend themselves adequately. The court has the power to reject a plaint if it finds that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. The rejection of the plaint is done under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC provides that the court may reject a plaint if it appears from the plaint that:
The plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
The plaintiff has failed to comply with any of the procedural requirements.
The plaint is vexatious or frivolous.
The plaint is barred by any law.
CASE LAWS
1. Ram Lal v. Ram Gopal [2008 SCC OnLine All 1843]: In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a property alleging that he was the owner of the property. However, the defendant produced documents to show that the plaintiff had sold the property to him. The plaintiff had suppressed this fact in the plaint. The court held that the suppression of material facts was a ground for rejecting the plaint, and therefore, the plaint was rejected.
2. Bhagwan Singh v. Ram Singh [(2003) 3 SCC 21]: In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a property alleging that he had purchased the property from the defendant. However, the defendant produced a document to show that the property was mortgaged to him by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had suppressed this fact in the plaint. The court held that the suppression of material facts was a ground for rejecting the plaint, and therefore, the plaint was rejected.
Conclusion
The suppression of material facts is a serious offence in the Indian legal system. It not only defeats the principles of natural justice but also leads to an abuse of the court's process. Therefore, it is essential for a plaintiff to disclose all the material facts in the plaint. The court has the power to reject a plaint if it finds that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. The rejection of the plaint is done under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. The above case laws serve as a warning to plaintiffs to disclose all material facts while filing a plaint to avoid the rejection of the plaint.