Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner

Facts

• The plaintiffs (tenants) filed a suit seeking declaration of their tenancy rights and injunction restraining eviction
• The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action
• The trial court rejected the plaint
• The appellate court and High Court upheld the rejection
• The matter reached the Supreme Court on the question of the correct approach to Rule 11 applications

Issue

1. What is the correct approach for a court when deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) for rejection of plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action?

Held

• The court must read the plaint as a whole when considering Rule 11(a)
• The averments in the plaint must be taken at face value
• If any part of the plaint discloses a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected
• The court should not embark on a mini-trial at this stage
• The defence of the defendant is irrelevant at the Rule 11 stage; only the plaint is examined

Ratio Decidendi

Under Order VII Rule 11(a), the court reads only the plaint, takes averments at face value, and rejects only if absolutely no cause of action is disclosed on a wholistic reading. The defence is irrelevant. The power is drastic and must be exercised sparingly.