Introduction
In Sheo Kumar Singh & Ors. vs M/s. Sharda Educational Society & Ors. (2026 INSC 1011), the Supreme Court clarified the scope of an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
The Court held that the admissibility of a document relied upon by the plaintiff is a matter for trial and cannot, at the outset, be a ground for rejection of the plaint.
Facts
The Appellants had leased land to the Respondents under a registered lease deed dated 17th October 2011 for a period of 33 years. Subsequently, a supplementary lease deed was executed on 15th February 2013, modifying certain terms of the original lease. The supplementary lease deed was not registered.
Alleging that the Respondents had not complied with the modified terms, the Appellants terminated the lease and filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent calculated in accordance with the supplementary lease deed.
The Respondents sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, contending that the supplementary lease deed was unregistered and, in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (“Registration Act”), could not be relied upon. It was therefore argued that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and consequently the suit was barred by law.
The Trial Court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11. However, the Patna High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court, holding that the unregistered supplementary lease deed was inadmissible in evidence and could not be treated as forming part of the registered lease deed. Relying on the law governing admissibility of unregistered documents, the Patna High Court remanded the Order VII Rule 11 application for fresh consideration.
Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and rejected the Respondents’ application for rejection of plaint. The Court reiterated that rejection of a plaint is a drastic power, as it results in the plaintiff being non-suited without a trial. Consequently, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court must examine the averments in the plaint as a whole and the documents filed along with it. The defendant’s defence is irrelevant at this stage.
The Court held that the admissibility of a document is a matter to be considered at trial. In the present case, whether the supplementary lease deed could be relied upon, whether it required registration and whether it could be used for a collateral purpose under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act were all questions to be decided after the parties had led evidence.
The Court also noted that the plaint specifically pleaded that the supplementary lease deed did not require registration. The Respondents’ contrary contention that registration was necessary was a defence and could not be considered to reject the plaint at the threshold. Considering such a defence at the Order VII Rule 11 stage would effectively require the Court to go beyond the plaint and adjudicate an issue that belongs to trial.
Accordingly, after considering the plaint averments in its entirety, the Supreme Court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law. The suit was therefore permitted to proceed and to be decided on merits, with the issue of admissibility of the supplementary lease deed expressly left open for determination by the Trial Court.
Our Analysis
The judgment draws a clear line between rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 and evidentiary value of documents. The former is a limited threshold enquiry. Question of admissibility falls for consideration at trial. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court must examine the plaint as a whole and proceed on the basis of its averments.
The judgment is particularly significant in cases involving unregistered documents. Section 49 of the Registration Act deals with effect of non-registration of documents that are required to be registered. Its proviso states that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered, can however be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument. Whether the proviso applies to a particular case is itself a matter for adjudication and, therefore, cannot be decided at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11.
A party seeking rejection under Order VII Rule 11 must therefore demonstrate that the plaint itself discloses no cause of action or is barred by law, without asking the Court to consider disputed evidentiary issues.
Link to Judgment – Click here
