The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides a comprehensive framework for civil adjudication, ensuring that frivolous or legally untenable suits do not burden the courts. One of the crucial procedural safeguards in this regard is Order VII Rule 11, which empowers a court to reject a plaint at the threshold under specific circumstances. Among these, clause (d) of Rule 11 holds special significance—it authorises rejection where “the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.”
The central question that has often arisen before Indian courts is whether, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court can look beyond the plaint and consider the defendant’s defence or accompanying documents.
The Supreme Court in Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors. (2025 INSC 1238) reaffirmed the settled principle that only the averments contained in the plaint are relevant at this stage. Any defence or factual assertion by the defendant cannot influence the court’s decision under this rule.
This article analyses the legal framework governing rejection of plaints, the judicial interpretation of “plaint averments,” and the implications of the Supreme Court’s latest ruling.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Purpose and Scope
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC enumerates six distinct grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. These include:
- lack of cause of action;
- undervaluation of relief;
- insufficient stamping;
- bar by law;
- non-filing in duplicate; and
- failure to comply with Rule 9.
The underlying purpose is to prevent the wastage of judicial time on suits that are defective on their face and to ensure that only triable disputes proceed to trial. The rule, however, must be applied with caution so as not to prematurely dismiss genuine claims.
Clause (d), dealing with a “bar by law,” often raises interpretative challenges—especially in determining whether limitation, res judicata, or statutory prohibitions can be inferred solely from the plaint.
Case Background: Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors.
In Karam Singh, the appellant had instituted a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of ancestral land, claiming title through natural succession. The respondents, on the other hand, relied on a will allegedly executed by the deceased owner, Kartar Kaur, and sought to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), arguing that the claim was hopelessly barred by limitation.
The trial court dismissed the application, observing that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and could not be decided at the threshold. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed this decision in revision, holding that the suit was time-barred as it was filed more than three decades after the will’s execution.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
1. Only Plaint Averments Can Be Considered
The Supreme Court categorically reaffirmed that when a plaint is sought to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d), the determination must be made solely based on the plaint averments and documents filed with it. Any defence or extraneous material is irrelevant at this stage.
“Clause (d) makes it clear that while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder, only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law.”
This principle ensures that the plaintiff’s case is tested on its face value, without prejudice from disputed facts that may emerge later in the proceedings.
2. Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Title
The Court noted that mutation entries serve a fiscal purpose and do not confer ownership rights. Hence, the fact that the defendants’ names appeared in revenue records did not automatically render the plaintiff’s claim barred.
3. Suit for Possession Based on Title Has a 12-Year Limitation
The Supreme Court clarified that the suit was not merely for the declaration of the will being void, but also for possession based on ownership. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation for a suit for possession based on title is twelve years from the date of adverse possession—not three years as for declaratory reliefs. Therefore, the claim was not ex facie barred by time.
4. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact Cannot Be Decided at the Threshold
Whether the defendants’ possession was adverse to the plaintiff and when the cause of action arose are factual issues that can only be adjudicated after evidence is led. Hence, rejection of the plaint at the preliminary stage was improper.
5. Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Not Established
The Court also rejected the argument that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 (relating to splitting of claims), noting that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff’s predecessor had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 and was not adjudicated on the merits.
Key Principles Reaffirmed
A. Plaint Alone Determines Maintainability
The Court reiterated a time-honoured rule of civil procedure—while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court cannot:
- consider the written statement;
- rely on extraneous material; or
- conduct a detailed factual inquiry.
The test is confined to the question: do the statements in the plaint, taken as true, show that the suit is barred by law?
This position is rooted in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 and has been followed in numerous subsequent judgments, including Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan (2022) 12 SCC 641.
B. Mixed Questions Cannot Lead to Rejection
Issues such as limitation, res judicata, or fraud often involve factual inquiry. If the plaint leaves room for evidence to determine these issues, the court must allow the suit to proceed.
The Supreme Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510 held that a plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defence alleges limitation or other bars; unless the bar is apparent on the face of the plaint, the matter must go to trial.
C. Liberal Construction in Favour of Access to Justice
Courts have repeatedly emphasised that procedural provisions should not be interpreted rigidly to deny a party’s substantive right. The rejection of a plaint being a drastic step, it should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the legal bar is unequivocal.
Limitation Aspect: Declaratory v. Possessory Relief
A critical component of the judgment is its interpretation of limitation laws. The Court relied on Indira v. Arumugam (1998) 1 SCC 614 and N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037) to distinguish declaratory and possessory reliefs.
- Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes three years for suits seeking a declaration.
- Article 65 provides twelve years for suits seeking possession based on ownership.
Where a suit combines both reliefs, the longer limitation applies if the right to possession continues to subsist. Thus, as long as the right to property endures, a declaration of title is not time-barred.
The Court held that the plaintiffs’ right to property was a continuing one and therefore could not be extinguished by limitation when the adverse possession was itself disputed.
Interplay Between Order VII Rule 11 and Order II Rule 2 CPC
Another point of contention was whether the present suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, which prevents a plaintiff from splitting a cause of action across multiple suits. The Court clarified that the previous suit filed by the plaintiff’s father had been rejected at the threshold and not adjudicated on the merits. Therefore, the subsequent properly framed suit could not be barred.
This finding reiterates the principle that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Reinforcement of Judicial Discipline
By emphasising that rejection of the plaint must be confined to the plaint averments, the Supreme Court reaffirms a disciplined approach to preliminary objections. Courts must resist the temptation to prejudge issues that require trial.
2. Protection Against Abuse of Order VII Rule 11
Defendants often invoke Order VII Rule 11 as a strategic tool to delay proceedings or derail legitimate claims. The judgment ensures that plaintiffs are not denied their day in court merely because defendants raise factual disputes under the guise of preliminary objections.
3. Clarification on Limitation for Possession Claims
The ruling clarifies that where possession is sought based on ownership, the limitation period is twelve years from the accrual of adverse possession, not three years from the first challenge. This protects the rights of heirs and successors who continue to assert ownership over ancestral property.
4. Prevents Judicial Overreach in Revisional Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court also highlighted that the High Court, while exercising revisional powers, must not reassess factual aspects or substitute its own findings where the trial court’s decision is based on settled principles. The High Court’s interference with the trial court’s discretion in this case was deemed legally unsustainable.
Relevant Precedents Cited
- T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 – Courts must reject vexatious plaints but only when the bar is apparent from the plaint itself.
- Rajendra Bajoria & Ors. v. Hemant Kumar Jalan (2022) 12 SCC 641 – Defence pleas cannot be considered at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.
- Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb (2023 SCC OnLine SC 521) – Reiterated that rejection of the plaint requires a clear statutory bar.
- Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208) – Where one of the reliefs is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected.
- Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021 SCC OnLine SC 802) – Mutation does not confer ownership; suits challenging such entries are maintainable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors. reinforces the bedrock procedural principle that rejection of a plaint must be based solely on plaint averments. The judgment balances procedural rigour with substantive justice by ensuring that plaintiffs are not denied their right to trial on disputed facts. It underscores that the function of Order VII Rule 11 is not to short-circuit genuine claims but to filter out only those cases that are manifestly barred by law.
In essence, the Court has reaffirmed that procedural law is not a tyrant but a servant of justice. A plaint should not be thrown out at the threshold unless it fails even on its face to disclose a legally tenable claim. This decision thus strengthens the right to fair adjudication and ensures that technicalities do not triumph over truth.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams