T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467; Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137; Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 764.

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 had an occasion to consider various precedents discussing intent and purpose of Order 7, Rule 11 while setting out principles in relation to same. Relying on Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614 it was held, it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it in isolation. It is substance and not merely form which has to be looked into. Further delving upon D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 367 it was held, if allegations in plaint prima facie show a cause of action, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether allegations are true in fact. Placing reliance on Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 it was held, power under Order 7, Rule 11 may be exercised by Court at any stage.

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, M/s. Frost International Ltd. v. M/s. Milan Developers and Builders (P) Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 2022].  

_____

In an application under Order 7, Rule 11 a plaint cannot be rejected in part.

– Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, [Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023] decided on 31.10.2023.

_____

See, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366.

As settled in law, when an application to reject a plaint is filed, averments in plaint and documents annexed therewith alone are germane. Court cannot look into a written statement. Civil Courts including this Court cannot go into rival contentions.

– Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle, [Civil Appeal No. 14807 of 2024] decided on 20.12.2024.

_____

See, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366.

– Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, Correspondence, R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar, [Civil Appeal No. 5200 of 2025] decided on 16.04.2025 and P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan, [Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025] decided on 29.04.2025.

_____

Order 7, Rule 11(d) makes it clear, while considering rejection of plaint, only averments made in plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether suit is barred by law. At this stage, defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on basis of averments made in plaint. Where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one relief is within period of limitation, plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to Order 7 Rule 11(d).

– Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3560-3561 of 2023] decided on 15.10.2025