High Court upholds settled law that Order 7 R 11 objections must assume plaint-averments true, rejects threshold challenge to locus standi, limits plaint-rejection to non-disclosure of cause of action
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
CRP/13/2019 of VANI NIRMALYA DAS Vs M/S. ELBIRD HATCHERY PVT. LTD. CNR ODHC010621742019 |
| Date of Registration | 07-11-2019 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Ananda Chandra Behera |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Affirms established Supreme Court precedents on plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (CPC 1908) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for lack of locus standi and/or non-disclosure of cause of action |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff company (M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd.) claimed to be the lessee of government land vested by amalgamation with its predecessor firm. After two mutation cases and an appeal, the title-records were under correction. Defendants 1–3 executed a sale deed in favour of Defendant 4 in 2010. The plaintiff filed C.S. No.594/2010 challenging locus and validity of that transfer. Defendants 1–3 moved under Order 7 R 11 CPC to reject the plaint for want of locus standi and cause of action; the trial court rejected that petition and defendants challenged by this revision under Section 115 CPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Trial courts and subordinate civil courts when adjudicating Order 7 R 11 CPC petitions |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering threshold objections under Order 7 R 11 CPC |
| Follows | Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemanta Kumar Jalan (2021), Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Bhanusali (2020), Jageswari Devi v. Shatrughan Ram (2007) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that lack of locus standi is not a threshold ground under Order 7 R 11 CPC; mis-joinder/party-status issues must be raised under Order 1 R 10 CPC.
- Emphasises that, on an Order 7 R 11 petition, courts must assume all plaint-averments true and decide solely on face-value.
- Clarifies that a plaint may only be rejected without trial if it utterly fails to disclose any cause of action; disputes over the truth or existence of the cause of action go to trial.
- Distinguishes between non-disclosure (rejection-stage) and non-existence (trial-stage) of cause of action.
- Provides binding guidance to subordinate courts on threshold scrutiny of plaints.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Order 7 R 11 CPC
- Only the averments in the plaint are to be scrutinised; the court must presume them true.
- Written statements and external evidence are irrelevant at this stage.
- Locus Standi
- Supreme Court precedents prohibit rejection of plaint for want of locus standi under Order 7 R 11.
- Party-status defects are curable under Order 1 R 10 CPC and only considered after trial begins.
- Cause of Action
- A plaint is threshold-rejectable only if it discloses no cause of action on its face.
- Whether the cause of action actually exists or succeeds is a matter for trial.
- Distinction Drawn
- Non-disclosure of cause of action = ground for rejection at threshold.
- Non-existence or falsity of cause of action = merits for trial.
- Reliance on Precedents
- Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemanta Kumar Jalan (2021) for threshold scrutiny principle.
- Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Bhanusali (2020) and Jageswari Devi v. Shatrughan Ram (2007) for cause-of-action analysis.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Defendants 1–3)
- The plaintiff company lost its private-company status after directors’ deaths and thus lacks locus standi.
- Suit properties were personal to the predecessor and devolved on defendants, so plaintiff has no cause of action.
Opposite Party No.1 (Plaintiff Company)
- Order 7 R 11 CPC does not permit rejection for lack of locus standi; that can only be tested at trial.
- Cause of action is fully and descriptively set out in Para 19 of the plaint; merits must await trial.
Opposite Party No.2 (Defendant 4)
- Adopted submissions on locus standi and cause of action drawn by petitioners.
Factual Background
M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd., successor to an unregistered firm, claimed to hold a lease on government land merged by agreement in 1987. After mutations and an appeal to correct the Record of Rights, defendants 1–3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant 4 in 2010. The plaintiff filed C.S. No. 594/2010 challenging the sale as illegal. Defendants 1–3 moved under Order 7 R 11 CPC to reject the plaint for want of locus standi and cause of action; their petition was rejected on 22.07.2019 and this revision under Section 115 CPC followed.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Grounds for rejection are limited to those on face of plaint (e.g., plaint barred by law, non-disclosure of cause of action).
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Permits amendment or cure of defects in party-joinder and averments after trial begins.
- Section 115 CPC: Revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional or legal errors in interlocutory orders.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on Order 7 R 11 CPC is affirmed.