Skip to main content

Rejection of Plaint

 Rejection of Plaint

BY: Bishrant Khatiwada, SLS, Pune, Email: bishrantkhatiwada0@gmail.com

The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) governs the filing and handling of civil lawsuits. Nowhere in the CPC is it specified what constitutes a "rejection of plaint," yet Order 7 Rule XI lists the grounds for a plaint's rejection. It specifies four reasons for dismissing a complaint. 

Rejection of the plaint- this section lays forth the reasons for dismissing the plaint:—

(a) if a cause of action is not disclosed;

(b) when the remedy sought is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to alter the valuation within a reasonable period after being ordered by the Court to do so;

(c) if the remedy sought is correctly valued, but the plaint is returned on inadequately stamped paper, and the plaintiff fails to furnish the needed stamp-paper within a reasonable time after being ordered by the Court to do so;

(d) if the claim appears to be precluded by law based on the plaint's declaration.

Grounds on which plaint is rejected

  1. If the plaintiff fails to identify the circumstances that give him the right to seek redress against the defendant, as well as the requisite facts to substantiate the defendant's wrongdoing against the plaintiff, the plaint can be dismissed which was affirmed in case of S.M.P. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd V. World Tanker Carrier Corporation (2000).

  2.  Where the plaintiff's claim for relief is devalued, or where the plaintiff fails to repair the situation on the court's order within a reasonable time.

  3. When a plaint is legally valued and relief is granted under it, but the plaint is dismissed due to inadequate paperwork or papers that are not properly certified or stamped, or when the plaintiff fails to file the plaint in compliance with the Court-fees Act.

  4. When a lawsuit is filed after a certain period of time has passed.

  5. The plaintiff must file a duplicate file of the plaint in every suite. The plaint is dismissed if this criteria is not met.

  6. The plaint might be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to act in line with Rules 7 and 9.

Provisions for rejection of plaint:

  1. Order 7 Rule 12; "For the rejection of a plaint, the judge should record an order with valid reasons for issuing such judgement," says the procedure. When a court dismisses a complaint, it's critical to keep track of the reasons."As a result, in the event that the plaint is dismissed, the court must record an order. The court should also take note of the reasons for the refusal.

  2. Order 7 Rule 13; "The rejection of the plaint on any of the reasons hereinbefore indicated shall not of its force bar the plaintiff from bringing a new plaint in respect of the same cause of action."If the plaint is dismissed for any of the reasons listed in Order 7 Rule XI, the plaintiff is not barred from filing a new plaint for the same cause of action.

Modes of Rejection of Plaint

  1. The defendant can file an application, which might be in the form of an interlocutory application, at any point throughout the proceedings.

  2. Suo Moto rejection is possible under Order VII Rule 1. A Suo Moto denial signifies that if the above-mentioned requirements are met, the court can try a case on its own initiative.

In case of Kalepur Pala Subrahmanyam v. Tiguti Venkata. (1971), it was held that the complaint cannot be rejected in part and accepted in part. It is rejected in its entirety. Whereas in another case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable V. Asstt. Charity Commr. (2004), An application filed under Order 7 Rule XI with the mala fide aim to induce a delay in the case is denied. In case of Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee (1961), the Calcutta highcourt said that because the order dismissing a plaint is a court judgement, it can be appealed.

In conclusion, One of the most significant documents is the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. It explains the civil litigation process in depth. It is critical to have a thorough comprehension of each and every provision. Order 7 Rule XI enumerates some of the grounds for dismissing a plaint. The word'shall' in the regulation makes it necessary for the court to dismiss the plaint if any of the conditions are met. It is also critical for the court to keep track of the reasons for whatever decision it makes in order to dismiss the complaint. Furthermore, just because a plaintiff's complaint is dismissed by the court does not mean the plaintiff is barred from pursuing the same claim in the future. He is not prevented from launching another suit on the same subject matter in the future.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more