Clarification on the Scope of Judicial Review under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/6065/2025 of KAWARJIT AND ANOTHER Vs ALISHA MALIK AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011389052025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Specific Performance; Order VII Rule 11 CPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of alleged benami transaction or want of readiness/willingness |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is confined only to the averments made in the plaint. Issues like benami nature, readiness and willingness, or other factual objections cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage, as they require evidence and full trial. The plaint in this case disclosed necessary averments regarding the agreement, payment, and willingness; any challenges to their truth or sufficiency are to be determined after both sides have led evidence. Consequently, the petition for rejection of plaint was correctly dismissed by the trial court. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5819–5822 of 2021 (as referred to by petitioners) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The settled principle that only averments in the plaint are relevant, not the defence, for Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications. Disputed facts are not to be decided at this stage. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell a house, mandatory injunction to execute sale deed, and permanent injunction. Defendants contended the transaction was benami, illegal, barred by law, and that plaintiff lacked readiness/willingness. The trial court dismissed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, leading to this revision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications |
| Follows | Supreme Court jurisprudence on the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC (as referenced in Civil Appeal Nos. 5819–5822 of 2021) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that courts are to consider only the plaint averments, and not defence contentions or facts disputed, when deciding Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications.
- Applications invoking benami law or alleging lack of readiness/willingness require evidence and cannot, by themselves, be grounds for rejection at the threshold.
- Plaint cannot be rejected at the initial stage merely on allegations of illegality or lack of particulars if averments exist prima facie; these issues must be tested at trial.
- Lawyers should focus Order VII Rule 11 CPC arguments on patent legal bars revealed solely from the plaint, not disputed facts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court detailed the circumstances under which a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, emphasizing that this provision is restricted to the statements in the plaint itself.
- It reaffirmed the principle that while considering rejection, courts cannot adjudicate upon the truth or falsity of averments, nor can they examine the tenability of the claim at this stage.
- Challenges based on alleged benami transactions or lack of readiness/willingness inherently involve disputed facts, requiring evidence and hence, a full trial.
- The Court examined the plaint and found sufficient averments on execution of the agreement, payment, and willingness to perform, and held that truthfulness or otherwise of these averments could not be determined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- The precedent cited by the petitioners did not apply, as ex facie bar or untenability was not found solely from the plaint.
- Therefore, the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint was correct, as the grounds raised were factual and not within the limited parameters for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The transaction is benami and hence barred by law.
- Plaint contains false averments and defective verification.
- Plaintiff neither pleaded nor showed readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract.
- Specific performance relief is discretionary; absent readiness/willingness, plaint should be rejected.
- Relied on Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 5819–5822 of 2021 to argue for threshold rejection.
Respondent
No notice was issued to respondents; judgment records that arguments by respondents were heard by the trial court (and summarized in the impugned order).
Factual Background
Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01.02.2021 for a double-storey house. Payments totaling ₹20,84,341 were alleged as part performance. Plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction for execution of sale deed and permanent injunction restraining creation of third-party rights. Petitioners (defendants) moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of alleged benami transaction, illegality, and absence of pleading readiness/willingness. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to the present revision.
Statutory Analysis
- Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was the primary statutory provision discussed.
- Court outlined sub-clauses (a) and (d) in particular: rejection where plaint does not disclose cause of action, or where suit appears from the plaint to be barred by any law.
- The Court clarified that the inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 is limited to the plaint’s statements alone.
- No application of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 could be determined at this stage from the plaint averments.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Decision applies and follows well-settled law on the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.