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. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. 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].