Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Dubey vs Anuj Jain on 15 September, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22011
1 CR-694-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 15 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 694 of 2024
MUKESH DUBEY
Versus
ANUJ JAIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This civil revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been filed against order dated 09/05/2024 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guna in RCS A No.123/2023 by which an application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been rejected.
It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the factum of institution and dismissal of previous suit has been suppressed by plaintiff which has been pointed out by defendant/applicant by filing his written statement and, therefore, the suit is barred by principle of res judicata .
The first question for consideration is as to whether, this Court while deciding the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. can look into any other document except plaint and the documents filed alongwith plaint?
The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another, Civil Appeal No.14807/2024 decided on 20.12.2024 has held as under:-
"11. The law applicable for deciding an application filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 9/16/2025 1:16:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22011
2 CR-694-2024 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was outlined by this Court in the decision in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives (2020) 7 SCC 366 and the same read as follows:
23.1 .....
23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [Azhar Hussain v.
Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315. Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 : (1998) 2 GLH 823] this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words :
(SCC p. 324, para 12) "12. ... The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action." 23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 9/16/2025 1:16:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22011 3 CR-694-2024 SCC 512] , read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 23.7. Order 7 Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under:
"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.--(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
(emphasis supplied) 23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 9/16/2025 1:16:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22011 4 CR-694-2024 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads as : (SCC p. 562, para 139) "139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941] . 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.14. The power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557] . The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315. Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 :
(1998) 2 GLH 823] .
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 9/16/2025 1:16:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22011 5 CR-694-2024 grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint."
Thus, it is clear that while entertaining an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., this Court cannot travel beyond pleadings as well as documents filed alongwith the plaint.
As already admitted by counsel for applicant that factum of institution and dismissal of first suit has not been mentioned in the plaint, therefore, this Court cannot look into the written statement filed by applicant.
However, the Trial Court is directed to frame all the issues which originate from pleadings of respective parties.
Thus, on technical issue, this Court is of considered opinion that application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. by defendant/applicant cannot be entertained.
Accordingly, this civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE PjS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 9/16/2025 1:16:00 PM