Patna High Court
Navneet Kumar and OthersversusAshok Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The trial court correctly refused to reject the plaint; the revision is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners filed a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the Sub‑Judge’s order refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The plaint sought declaration that four sale deeds were void and claimed title over the disputed property. Petitioners argued that the suit was not maintainable, was undervalued, and that the plaintiffs had not filed requisite documents or paid proper court fees. The trial court rejected the petition, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the objections raised were matters for trial. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the limited grounds for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, concluding that the trial court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction and that the plaint, on its face, required a full trial. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in law in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.
- Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and is maintainable under the CPC.
- Whether the trial court exercised its jurisdiction correctly and whether there was any material irregularity justifying interference under Section 115 CPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115, Order VII Rule 11, Order VII Rule 14
Subjects
- civil revision
- Order VII Rule 11
- plaint rejection
- jurisdiction
- Code of Civil Procedure
- revisional jurisdiction
- cause of action
- trial court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.133 of 2024
======================================================
1. Navneet Kumar, aged about 36 years, Male, Son of Sri Jitendra Narayan
Singh, Resident of Rupas Mahaji, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna
Presently residing at New Police LIne, Lodipur, Budha Colony, Patna-
8000001.
2. Amit Kumar, aged about 30 years, Male, Son of Sri Jitendra Narayan Singh,
Resident of Rupas Mahaji, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna Presently
residing at New Police Line, Lodipur, Budha Colony, Patna-8000001.
3. Smt. Renu Kumari, aged about 32 years, Female, Wife of Navneet Kumar,
Resident of Rupas Mahaji, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna Presently
residing at New Police Line, Lodipur, Budha Colony, Patna-8000001.
4. Prachi Garg, aged about 26 years, Female, Wife of Amit Kumar, Resident of
Rupas Mahaji, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna Presently residing at
New Police Line, Lodipur, Budha Colony, Patna-8000001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Ashok Singh, Son of Late Bhagwan Singh, Resident of Rupas Maruahi,
Post-Kala Diyara, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna.
2. Pramod Kumar Singh, Son of Late Bhagwan Singh, Resident of Rupas
Maruahi, Post-Kala Diyara, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna.
………………… Plaintiff-Opposite Parties 1st Set
3. Sri Narayan Kumar, Son of Late Hari Narayan Sharma, Resident of Village-
Jai Kishun Bigha, Post-Jaitipur Kurba, Police Station and District-
Jehanabad.
4. Sri Mahesh Kumar, Son of Late Hari Narayan Sharma, Resident of Village-
Jai Kishun Bigha, Post-Jaitipur Kurba, Police Station and District-
Jehanabad.
5. Sri Keshari Nandan Kumar, Son of Late Hari Narayan Sharma, Resident of
Village-Jai Kishun Bigha, Post-Jaitipur Kurba, Police Station and District-
Jehanabad.
…………….. Defendant 1st Set-Opposite Parties 2nd Set
6. Siya Devi, Wife of Late Madan Singh, Resident of Rupas Maruahi, Post-
Kala Diyara, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna.
7. Raushan Kumar, Son of Late Madan Singh, Resident of Rupas Maruahi,
Post-Kala Diyara, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abhishek, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate
======================================================
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
2/13
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
5 23-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Civil Revision application has been filed
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) against the order dated
12.08.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Judge VIIth, Vaishali,
Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Title Suit
No.214 of 2020 whereby and where under the petition dated
14.02.2022 filed on behalf of defendant 2nd set/petitioners for
rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11of the CPC was
rejected.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the opposite
party Ist set/plaintiffs filed the Title Suit No.214 of 2020 seeking
relief for declaration that the four sale deeds dated 08.01.2022
described in Schedule-1 of the plaint executed by defendants Ist
set in favour of defendants 2nd set/petitioners are void and not
binding upon the plaintiffs. They further sought a relief for
declaration of title of the plaintiffs and defendants 3rd set over
the property described in Schedule-2 of the plaint.
4. Subsequently, petitioners/defendants 2nd set filed
petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
3/13
plaint on point that the suit, as framed, is not maintainable and
there is no valid reason for filing the suit. The relief claimed by
the plaintiffs is undervalued and the plaintiffs have not complied
with the mandate of the provision under Order VII, Rule 14 of
the CPC, which required the plaintiffs to file all the documents
relied upon. It is also stated that the plaintiffs have not paid the
appropriate Court fees. The petitioners/defendants 2nd set
further stated that the plaintiffs haves not filed any documents in
support of their contention that the disputed property was part of
Raghuvansh Prasad Singh’s estate at Kupasela. The
petitioners/defendants 2nd set further claimed that the Court fees
required to be paid on the plaint should be calculated on an ad
valorem basis, since the plaintiffs have not produced a registered
sale deed.
5. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case, the learned Trial Court in the petition filed by the
defendants dated 14.02.2022 rejected the same vide order dated
12.08.2024. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the
petitioners/defendants 2nd set has preferred this Civil Revision
application before this Court, assailing the legality, propriety
and correctness of the said order on the ground that the learned
Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the mandatory
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
4/13
provisions of law and has exercised jurisdiction with material
irregularity.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the impugned order suffers from patent jurisdictional error
inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it by law. He further submitted that the
learned Trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in
rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 14.02.2022 without
appreciating the fact that the relief sought is not maintainable
and the plaintiffs are required to file relevant documents in
support of their claim and merely vague statement about title
and possession does not disclose a valid cause of action.
6.i. He further submitted that from perusal of the
averments made in the plaint, it appears that the suit does not
disclosed the cause of action. Apart from this the relief claimed
is under valued. Also no documents in support of claim made in
the plaint have been produced and as such the plaint is fit to be
rejected. He further submitted that a clever drafting of the suit
should always carefully examined by the Courts so that injustice
should not be done to the parties.
6.ii. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
5/13
from patent illegality inasmuch as it failed to appreciate that the
plaint, on the face of its own averments, is barred by law within
the meaning of Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC and prima facie is
liable to be rejected at the very outset.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
plaintiffs/opposite parties has substantiated the impugned order
and submitted that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in the
facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of law that, at the
stage of consideration under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the
Court is neither required nor permitted to adjudicate upon the
veracity, sufficiency, or otherwise of the pleaded facts, as such
an exercise falls strictly within the domain of trial.
7.i. He further submitted that the report of Seristedar,
on 11.09.2020, clarifies the fact that the Court fee paid was
sufficient in the suit and only after perusing the report of
Seristedar the plaint was admitted in the learned Trial Court.
Learned counsel, moreover, submitted that the examination of
documents is a matter of further procedure and the same are
required to be analyzed at the stage of trial. It is further
submitted that the contours of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC
provides for rejection of plaint based on limited grounds
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
6/13
provided therein, however, the averments made by the
petitioners can not be ipso facto ground for the rejection of
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
7.ii. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh and
Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240 to submit that
when considering a plaint rejection application under Order VII,
Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must look only at the averments
made in the plaint and accompanying documents, and not the
defence. Lastly, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned
order passed by the learned Trial Court is legal and does not
warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, the present
Civil Revision application is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials available
on record, including the impugned order and the order sheets of
the learned Trial Court, the point that arises for determination in
the present revision is “whether the learned Trial Court erred in
law in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC seeking rejection of the plaint?”
9. Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits,
it would be apposite to notice the scope of interference in
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
7/13
exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.
This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the order of the
subordinate Court; interference is warranted only where the
learned Trial Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it
by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has
acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity. Thus, unless the finding recorded by the learned
Trial Court is shown to suffer from a patent error of law or
jurisdictional infirmity, this Court would be slow to substitute its
own view merely because another view is possible.
10. The contours of revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the CPC have been authoritatively delineated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society
v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659,
wherein, it has been held that “the revisional power is
supervisory in nature and cannot be equated with appellate
jurisdiction; interference is permissible only where the
subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction or with material
irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction”. Similarly, in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh,
reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated
that re-appreciation of facts or substitution of a possible view is
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
8/13
impermissible in revision unless the impugned order suffers
from patent illegality or perversity.
11. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce the
principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC which have been explained in the case of
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) and Ors.,
reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has settled the principles and made the following observations:
“12.6. At this stage, 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, or taken into consideration.
“12.7. The test for exercising the power
under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the
averments made in the plaint are taken
entirety, in conjunction with the documents
relied upon, would the same result in a
decree being passed”.
“23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is
an independent and special remedy,
wherein the court is empowered to
summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold,
without proceeding to record evidence, and
conducting a trial, on the basis of the
evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the
action should be terminated on any of the
grounds contained in this provision.
23.5. The power conferred on the court to
terminate a civil action is, however, a
drastic one, and the conditions enumerated
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
9/13
in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be
strictly adhered to.
23.9. In exercise of power under this
provision, the court would determine if the
assertions made in the plaint are contrary
to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for
deciding whether a case for rejecting the
plaint at the threshold is made out.
23.10. At this stage, 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, or taken into consideration.
[Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr.,
(2004) 3 SCC 137]
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede &
Co. [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.,
(2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held
that it is not permissible to cull out a
sentence or a passage, and to read it in
isolation. It is the substance, and not merely
the form, which has to be looked into. The
plaint has to be construed as it stands,
without addition or subtraction of words. If
the allegations in the plaint prima facie
show a cause of action, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations are true in fact. D.
Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [D.
Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999)
3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v.
Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC
941].
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the
plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly.
vexatious and without any merit, and does
not disclose a right to sue, the court would
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
10/13
be justified in exercising the power under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is
mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint
“shall” be rejected if any of the grounds
specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out.
If the court finds that the plaint does not
disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is
barred by any law, the court has no option,
but to reject the plaint.”
12. It is pertinent to note here that the plea essentially
introduces a defence based on disputed facts, which does not
emanate from the averments made in the plaint and, therefore,
cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It is well settled that, for the purposes
of Order VII Rule 11of the CPC, the Court is required to confine
itself strictly to the pleadings in the plaint and assume the same
to be correct, without embarking upon an enquiry into their
truthfulness or otherwise. The contentions raised by the
petitioners for the rejection of plaint in the present case are not
the appropriate ground for the rejection of plaint under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Further the document on which the
plaintiffs relied to establish his claims, is the matter of
adjudication at the stage of trial, and cannot be conclusively
determined at the threshold.
13. Moreover, the defence sought to be raised by the
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
11/13
petitioners cannot be used to displace such averments at this
preliminary stage. Accordingly, the said contention falls outside
the limited scope of inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC
and does not warrant rejection of the plaint. In the considered
view of this Court, the issue raised, therefore, does not fall
within the limited scope of inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC and has rightly not been accepted as a ground for
rejection at this stage.
14. All the questions and objections raised in the
application filed by the defendants are matters which go to the
root of the controversy and constitute triable issues requiring
appreciation of evidence. Such issues cannot be adjudicated at a
preliminary stage, as their determination would necessitate a
detailed examination of facts, pleadings, and evidentiary
material, which is impermissible without a full-fledged trial. It
is settled that questions involving disputed facts and merits of
the case are to be decided only at the stage of final adjudication
after the parties have been afforded adequate opportunity to lead
evidence. Moreover, the contentions raised in the application are
not amenable to determination at this stage and are liable to be
adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the suit.
15. In view of the aforesaid analysis and settled legal
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
12/13
position, this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection of
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power to
be exercised sparingly and only when the plaint, on the face of
it, is barred by any law, this Court finds that the learned Trial
Court has rightly refused to reject the plaint. The impugned
order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material
irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order
under challenge, and the present Civil Revision application is
liable to be dismissed.
16. As settled above that in revisional jurisdiction,
interference is warranted only when the Subordinate Court has
exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise
jurisdiction so vested, or acted with material irregularity. The
impugned order, though concise, reflects consideration of the
relevant aspects and does not suffer from jurisdictional error or
perversity so as to warrant interference under Section 115 of the
CPC. Since the plaint, on its face, discloses triable issues
requiring adjudication after full-fledged trial and evaluation of
evidences, this Court is of the considered view that no such
ground is made out to invoke the revisional power of this Court.
17. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2024(5) dt.23-04-2026
13/13
Application No. 133 of 2024 stands dismissed.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U
Checking your session…