Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Triveni Bai Died Through Lrs (1) ... vs Shri Niwas Sharma on 17 September, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22560
1 CR-117-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 117 of 2025
SMT. TRIVENI BAI DIED THROUGH LRS (1) RAMLAKHAN
SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI NIWAS SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Nakul Khedkar - Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. S.S.Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 6 / State.
ORDER
Heard through video conferencing.
This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabalgarh, District Morena, in RCSA No. 46/2017, by which an application filed by applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that plaintiffs had earlier filed a civil suit, which was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. In view of provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, a fresh suit is barred, and the only remedy available with plaintiffs was to seek restoration of the earlier suit, but without filing any application for restoration of earlier suit, present suit has been filed, therefore, present suit is barred by law as per the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-09-2025 09:54:22NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22560 2 CR-117-2025
3. Heard learned counsel for applicants.
4. It appears that earlier, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 05.07.2021, which was challenged by the applicants before this Court. By order dated 28.11.2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the application afresh after considering the defence of plaintiffs that they had never filed the suit on earlier occasion. After the matter was remanded back, impugned order has been passed, and once again, application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
5. Although multiple arguments have been advanced by counsel for applicants, but moot question for consideration is as to whether application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be considered at this stage or not?
6. It is a well-established principle that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has to be decided on the basis of plaint averments. The Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 has held as under:
"23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under:
"11. Rejection of plaint.--The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-09-2025 09:54:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22560 3 CR-117-2025 stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
(emphasis supplied) 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."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-09-2025 09:54:22NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22560 4 CR-117-2025 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 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."
It is nowhere mentioned in the plaint that plaintiffs had ever filed any civil suit prior to institution of the suit in question. When an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed, a specific reply was given by plaintiffs that they had never filed any suit on earlier occasion, and therefore, there was no question of filing an application for restoration of suit, which was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-09-2025 09:54:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22560 5 CR-117-2025 dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC.
7. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether this Court, at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, can adjudicate the question as to whether plaintiffs had earlier filed any civil suit or not?
8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of maintainability of suit in the present case is a mixed question of fact and law. If plaintiffs are right in submitting that they never filed any suit on earlier occasion, then the consequences of dismissal of said suit under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC would be different, and if it is found that defence taken by respondents/plaintiffs, in reply to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is false, and in fact they had filed a civil suit which was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC, then the consequences, as mentioned under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC would follow.
9. Thus, the moot question for consideration is as to whether previous suit was filed by plaintiffs or not? This question cannot be adjudicated by this Court while entertaining an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. This can be decided by the trial Court only after recording evidence of the parties.
10. Under these circumstances, looking to the controversy which has been raised by plaintiffs/respondents in their reply to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, this civil revision is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to frame a specific issue as to whether the present suit is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC or not, and the said issue shall be decided after giving a specific finding as to whether previous suit was instituted by plaintiffs or not.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-09-2025 09:54:22NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22560 6 CR-117-2025
11. With aforesaid modification, order dated 07.10.2024 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabalgarh, District Morena, in RCSA No. 46/2017 is hereby affirmed.
12. The civil revision is finally disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AKS Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-09-2025 09:54:22