Orissa High Court
*** vs M/S. Babaji Nayak Contractors on 14 November, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
CRP No.35 of 2025
An application under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908.
***
Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd, Burla, Sambalpur & Others ... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
M/s. Babaji Nayak Contractors, Angul & Another ... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. D.K Mohanty, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S, Biswal, Advocate.
(For the Opp. Parties) P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 14.11.2025 CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 1 of 11 J UDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This Revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners (defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.117 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Cuttack) against the Opp. Parties (plaintiffs in the suit vide C.S. No117 of 2024) challenging an order of rejection of their petition dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure-8) under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 passed on dated 22.08.2025 in the suit vide C.S. No.117 of 2024 (Annexure-1) by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Cuttack.
2. The factual backgrounds of this Revision, which promoted the petitioners (defendants) for filing of the same is that, the plaintiffs filed the suit vide C.S. No.117 of 2024 praying for recovery of Rs.49,38,738,03p/- from the defendants (petitioners in this revision) on the basis of an work order dated 26.10.2005 and agreement dated 30.11.2005 stating in detail about their case in the plaint.
During the trial of the said suit vide C.S. No.117 of 2024 i.e. CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 2 of 11 before closure of evidence from the side of the plaintiffs (Opp. Parties), the defendants (petitioners) filed a petition on dated 15.07.2025 under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of that suit vide C.S. No.117 of 2024 on the ground of non-indicating the exact date relating to the accrual of cause of action for filing of the suit and making general and ambiguous expressions about its causes of actions and also alleging that, there is absence of foundational documents to base their claim against the defendants/petitioners.
To which, the plaintiffs (Opp. Parties) objected submitting their written objection vide Annexure-9 taking their stands that, they (plaintiffs) have specifically pleaded in Para No.33 of their plaint about the accrual of the causes of actions for filing of the suit indicating separate dates for each cause of action and their plaint is clearly and unambiguously disclosing the causes of actions for filing of the suit against the defendants on the basis of various letters issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants. For which, their plaint clearly and unambiguously is disclosing the causes of actions for filing of the suit against the defendants. That apart, Order 7, Rule 14 CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 3 of 11 (3) of the CPC gives liberty to the plaintiffs for filing of the documents in support of their plaint even at the stage of hearing of the suit with the leave of the Court and non-filing of the documents with the plaint by them (plaintiffs) cannot be a ground/reason for rejection of their plaint, as the evidence from the side of the plaintiffs has not been closed. For which, the plaint of the plaintiffs cannot be rejected.
Therefore, the petition dated 15.07.2025 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendants is liable to be rejected.
3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Trial Court rejected to the petition dated 15.07.2025 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendants on dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-1) assigning the reasons that, "as, the Para No.33 of the plaint of the plaintiffs is clearly disclosing the causes of actions for filing of the suit, for which, the non- filing of the document by the plaintiffs with the plaint cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint."
4. On being aggrieved with the above impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in C.S. No.117 of 2024 by CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 4 of 11 the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Cuttack rejecting the petition dated 15.07.2025 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC of the defendants, they (defendants) challenged the same by filing this Revision being the petitioners against the plaintiffs arraying them (plaintiffs) as Opp. Parties.
5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants) and the learned counsel for the Opp. Parties (plaintiffs).
6. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, on the basis of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-1), the crux of this revision are:
I. When the averments of the plaint is disclosing the cause of action, then, whether plaint can be rejected for want of cause of action on the ground that, the cause of action indicated in the plaint are not correct?
II. Whether non-filing of the documents with the plaint of the plaintiffs shall entail for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908?
CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 5 of 11
7. The law relating to the rejection of plaint, when it is alleged by the defendants that, the causes of actions indicated in the plaint are not correct has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Syed Jalal Vs. Madroom Sri Ram Chabdra Murthy reported in 2018 (1) Civil Court Cases 135 (T & A.P) that, if plaint ex-facie discloses cause of action, Court cannot exercise power under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of the plaint. II. In a case between Kishore Kumar Vs. Ishar Dass reported in 2024 (4) CCC 123 (J & K) that, plaint cannot be rejected for non-existence of cause of action but the plaint can be rejected only for non-disclosure of cause of action. III. In a case between Jageshwari Devi & Others Vs. Shatrughan Ram reported in (2007) 15 SCC 52 that, there is a distinction between "non-disclosure of cause of action" and "non- existence of cause of action". Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and not the non- existence of a cause of action.
IV. In a case between Niharkanti Mishra Vs. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik & Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C. 47 (Ori.) that, plaint can only be rejected when there is non-disclosure of action, but plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 for non- existence of cause of action.CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 6 of 11
V. In a case between Satya pal Gupta Vs. Sudhir Kumar Gupta reported in 2016 (3) Civ.C.C. 240 (Del.) (D.B.) that, when the plaint reveals about the cause of action, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of lack of clarity of the cause of action. Because, conclusive view cannot be taken at the preliminary stage of deciding if the plaint is liable to be rejected or not.
VI. In a case between Nisha Devliya Vs. Nandani Mishra & Others reported in 2024 (2) CCC 271 (M.P.) that, plaint cannot be rejected when it discloses cause of action.
VII. In a case between Mohammad Amin Bhat Vs. State of J&K and Others reported in 2012 (9) Lawdigital.In 750 J & K that, Order 7, Rule 11--plaint can be rejected when it does not discloses cause of action.
Perusal of plaint clearly shows as to how cause of action has accrued to plaintiff so has been disclosed. Whether the same is true or incorrect is a question for trial. In case plaint would not disclose cause of action, then, definitely clause (a) of the Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC would apply but in the instant case, on perusal of plaint, cause of action is clearly disclosed, therefore, this contention fails. VIII. In a case between Sukruti Dugal Vs. Jahnavi Dugal & Others reported in 2020 (3) Civ.C.C. 555 (Delhi) DB that, when a plaint of the plaintiffs discloses a right to sue (cause of action), the same cannot be rejected for want of CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 7 of 11 cause of action under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC by indicating a detailed analysis of the averments made therein and going through the documents filed by the appellants/plaintiffs with a toothcomb to adjudge their correctness or authenticity.
8. Here in this matter at hand, when the Para No.33 of the plaint of the plaintiffs in the suit vide C.S. No.117 of 2024 is disclosing about the cause of action for filing of the suit, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the plaint of the plaintiffs (Opp. Parties) cannot be rejected on the ground that, the causes of actions indicated in the plaint for filing of the suit are incorrect.
9. So far as the 2nd ground raised by the defendants (petitioners in this Revision) in their petition dated 15.07.2025 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs (Opp. Parties in this Revision) i.e. non-filing of the documents with the plaint in support of their case is concerned;
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 8 of 11
I. In a case between Mohd. Farooq Vs. Yogesh & Another reported in 2018 (3) Civ.C.C. 696 Raj. that, non-filing of tile document along with the suit cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, because, document can be filed at a later stage by virtue of Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC. II. In a case between G. Venkata Swamy & Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2015(1) Civ.C.C. 438 (AP) that, when in spite of necessary averments in plaint certain documents were not produced along with plaint, in that case, plaintiff permitted to produce those documents in support of his plea. III. In a case between Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner & Others Vs. Jaswinder Singh & Others reported in 2010 (6) Lawdigital. In (Delhi) 503 that, rejection of plaint sought on grounds of misjoinder of parties or non-filing of documents despite time having been given by the Court, held, these are not the grounds for rejection of the plaint summarily under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC.
10. In view of the above principles of law, as clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the plaint of the plaintiffs cannot be rejected on the round of non-filing of documents CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 9 of 11 relied in the plaint, because, such documents can be filed at a later stage by virtue of Order 7, Rule 11 of Sub-clause (3) of the CPC, 1908.
For which, this 2nd ground raised on behalf of the defendants (petitioners in this Revision) for rejection of the plaint is also not sustainable under law.
11. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, both the grounds raised by the defendants (petitioners in this Revision) in their petition dated 15.07.2025 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs (Opp. Parties in this Revision) are not acceptable under law, then, at this juncture, the rejection to the petition dated 15.07.2025 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendants by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Cuttack through the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-1) cannot be held as erroneous.
For which, the question of interfering with the impugned order through this Revision filed by the petitioners (defendants) does not arise. CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 10 of 11
12. Therefore, there is no merit in the Revision filed by petitioners (defendants). The same must fail.
13. In result, the Revision filed by the petitioners (defendants) is dismissed on contest.
14. As such, this Revision filed by the petitioners (defendants) is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 14 .11. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 17-Nov-2025 19:49:04 CRP No.35 of 2025 Page 11 of 11