Issue
The Supreme Court stated that a complaint can not be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC solely because it contains some contradictory averments. Only the claims presented in the plaint and the supporting documents must be reviewed in order to process an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the CPC.
Facts of the case
In this instance, the plaintiffs brought a lawsuit in the City Civil Court of Bangalore, asking for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the plaint on the grounds that it does not reveal the cause of action, granting the motion submitted by the defendants. The High Court upheld this decree.
In an appeal before the Apex Court, it was argued that by highlighting the conflicting claims made in the plaint, the courts had addressed the issue of whether the averments in the plaint were accurate.
Arguments
The cause of action is stated in the complaint. The question of whether or whether the appellants will ultimately triumph is another.
Merely the allegations made in the complaint and the supporting papers must be reviewed in order to process an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the CPC. The defendants’ defence cannot even be considered. The Court must review the plaint to see if any causes of action have been revealed where the lack of a cause of action is stated as a reason for rejecting the plaint.
Reasoning
The court observed that the Trial Court and the High Court had addressed the issue of whether the allegations in the plaint were true by highlighting inconsistencies in those allegations.
Judgement
The appeal was accepted by the court, and the case was resumed.
Provisions used in the case
Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC
Case title – G. NAGARAJ vs B.P. MRUTHUNJAYANNA
Written By – Nikita Shankar
