KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR vs NISHANT SHARMA

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
OMP No. 507 of 2026
in Civil Suit No. 03 of 2024
Reserved on: 08.10.2026
Decided on: 02.11.2026
Date of Uploading on Website:
02.11.2026
________________________________________________
Keshav Dutt Shreedhar ....Non-applicant/plaintiff
Versus
Nishant Sharma .…Applicant/defendant
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Non-applicant/plaintiff : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala,
Senior Advocate with Mr.
Dinkar Bhaskar,
Advocate.
For the non-applicant/defendant : Mr. Nishant Sharma, in
person.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge
This order shall dispose of an application filed by
the applicant/defendant, under Order 7, Rule 11 read with
Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint. As per the
applicant, the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and
has not approached this Court with clean hands. The plaintiff
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
2
by clever drafting, sought to create an illusory and non-
existent cause of action, which is liable to be nipped in the
bud. It has been stated that the present suit is nothing but a
retaliatory counter-blast to the criminal proceedings instituted
by the defendant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed
the present suit with mala fide and sole intent to harass,
intimidate and coerce. It has further been stated that the
documents annexed with the plaint, being inconsistent and
destructive of the averments in the plaint, disclose no
enforceable right to sue. The plaintiff has deliberately
misrepresented his status as a Director, despite having ispo
jure ceased to hold office upon non-regularization of his
appointment as an Additional Director. It has also been
stated that there is no actionable publication alleged
disclosure to junior Advocates arising from internal handling
of a privileged communication, not intended for third parties
and the same does not constitute defamation in law. Lastly, it
has been prayed that since there are vague and defective
pleading of cause of action, therefore, the plaint is liable to
be rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
3
2. Reply to the application has been filed, wherein,
contents of the application have been denied and it has been
averred that case of the plaintiff is based upon the
defamatory e-mail dated 09.10.2023, the details whereof
have been given in the plaint. It has been duly stated in the
plaint that the said defamatory statement had enough
publication and the said statement led to defamation and
loss of reputation of the plaintiff, as such, it cannot be said
that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. It has
further been averred that the ground of concealment of
material facts, even though not in existence, is not available
as a ground for rejection of the plaint. It has been denied that
there is a vague application of the defamatory material. It has
further been denied that there is absence of any material
particulars in the plaint, rather, the plaint contains all the
required pleadings and discloses the cause of action. Rest of
the averments made in the application have been denied.
3. I have heard applicant/defendant, who is present
in person, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
4
non-applicant/plaintiff and also gone through the material
available on record.
4. The applicant/defendant, who is present in
person, contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable, as it does not disclose any cause of action. He
further contended that the averments made in the plaint,
being inherently deficient and self contradictory, fails to
satisfy the statutory requirement under Order VII Rule 11(a)
CPC, hence the plaint is liable to be rejected.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for
the non-applicant/plaintiff contended that the plaint discloses
cause of action which accrued to the plaintiff on 09.10.2023
at Shimla, where e-mail was accessed and published,
leading to defamation of the plaintiff. He further contended
that the present application is misconceived and has been
filed just to delay the course of the trial, as it has been filed
belatedly when pleadings are complete and case is ready to
go for the trial. With these submissions, prayer for dismissal
of the application with costs has been made.
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
5
6. It is settled law that the power conferred on Civil
Courts to reject plaint at the threshold is an extra-ordinary
power and, therefore, required to be exercised with great
care and circumspection. At this stage, it would be relevant
to reproduce Oder 7, Rule 11 of 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 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 comply with the provision 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.”
7. Thus, under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, plaint can be
rejected on the grounds that the suit is barred by law or it
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
6
does not disclose the cause of action or proper court fees
has not been paid even after order of the court or where it is
not filed in duplicate or where the plaintiff fails to comply with
the provision of Rule 9. It is well settled that the Court, at the
stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule, 11 of
CPC has to examine only the plaint averments, and the
documents filed along with the suit. Other pleas advanced by
parties, including the pleadings in the written statement, have
no relevance in order to decide the present application in
hand. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v.
M.V. Sea Success I and another, (2004) 9 SCC 512, while
dealing with the law relating to rejection of plaint under Order
VII, Rule 11, CPC, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is
essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does
not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the
said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their
entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether
if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in
their entirety, a decree would be passed.
151. In ascertaining whether the plaint shows a cause of
action, the court is not required to make an elaborate
enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or
fact………..
152. So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or
raises some questions fit to be decided by a judge, the mere
fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no
ground for striking it out. The purported failure of the
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
7
pleadings to disclose a cause of action is distinct from the
absence of full particulars."
8. In the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 759 , it was held with reference
to Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC that the relevant facts which
need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder
are the averments in the plaint. The trial Court can exercise
the power at any stage of the suit before registering the
plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time
before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of
deciding an application under Clauses (a) and (d) of Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the
germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
9. In the case of Popat and Kotecha Property v.
State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 , it
was held as under: -
"20…...The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits…….
*
23.Rule 11 of Order VII lays down an independent
remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the
maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
8
contest the same on merits. The law ostensibly does not
contemplate at any stage when the objections can be
raised, and also does not say in express terms about the
filing of a written statement. Instead, the word “shall is ‟
used clearly implying thereby that it casts a duty on the
Court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint
when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in
the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of
the defendant. In any event, rejection of the plaint under
Rule 11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting
a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13."
10. Thus, the real object of Order VII, Rule 11, CPC
is to keep out irresponsible lawsuits from the Courts and it
provides for an independent remedy for the defendant to
challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of
his right to contest the same on merits. The Supreme Court
in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004)
3 SCC 137, held as under:-
“ 17.... The real object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code
is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits. Therefore,
Order 10 of the Code is a tool in the hands of the courts
by resorting to which and by a searching examination of
the party, in case the court is prima facie of the view that
the suit is an abuse of the process of the court, in the
sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the
jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be
exercised.

20....Rule 11 of Order 7 lays down an independent
remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the
maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to
contest the same on merits. The law ostensibly does not
contemplate at any stage when the objections can be
raised, and also does not say in express terms about the
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
9
filing of a written statement. Instead, the word ―shall is ‖
used, clearly implying thereby that it casts a duty on the
court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint
when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in
the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of
the defendant. In any event, rejection of the plaint under
Rule 11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting
a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13.”
11. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC
1253, the Supreme Court further 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 the judicial
time of the Court, in the following words :-
“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…...”

12. Thus, on the conspectus of the settled position of
law, it is crystal clear that the power vested in the Court
under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC is to curb abusive or
fruitless litigation which is bound to meet a dead fate. Order
VII, Rule 11 CPC is a vital procedural safeguard that
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
10
prevents the abuse of the legal process and ensures that
only legitimate disputes consume judicial time. While the
rule acts as a gatekeeper preventing frivolous litigation,
courts also exercise caution to ensure that genuine plaintiffs
are not unjustly denied their right to seek justice due to
hyper-technicalities. The balance lies in a judicious
application of the rule, upholding the sanctity of court
proceedings while safeguarding access to justice.
13. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court
in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the case on hand and the
averments in the plaint, this court is of the opinion that the
applicant/defendant has not made out a case for rejection of
plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
14. The application for rejection of plaint has been filed
primarily on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any
cause of action. It is a settled law that a cause of action is a
bundle of facts which are required to be pleaded and proved
for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit and for
the said purpose the material facts and not the evidence are
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
11
required to be stated in the plaint. Whether a plaint discloses
a cause of action or not is a question of fact and whether a
cause of action is disclosed or not is to be found out from a
reading of the plaint itself. The veracity of the averments
made in the plaint or the chances of the allegations made in
the plaint being proved are not relevant while deciding an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC
15. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has specifically
averred in the plaint that on 09.10.2023 the defendant sent
an e-mail, which was totally false, malicious, without any
basis and defamatory. The plaintiff has also reproduced the
said e-mail in the plaint. In the plaint it has specifically been
averred that said e-email was accessed by junior Advocates
in the Office of the plaintiff at Shimla namely, Mr. Sameer
Thakur, Ms. Shreya Chauhan and Ms. Sneh Bhimta for the
purpose of taking follow up action and they were shocked to
read the contents of the e-mail. The wife of the plaintiff, Smt.
Sarita Shreedhar, was also shocked to read the allegations
levelled by the defendant in the e-mail, not only pertaining to
the official business, but also with respect to his personal life.
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
12
Smt. Sarita Shreedhar’s e-mail account had an automatic
filter that forwarded the said e-mail to the son of the plaintiff,
Sh. Akshay Shreedhar. She was so much mentally perturbed
that she had no other option but to discuss the matter with
her sisters and other family members and all of them
repeatedly enquired the matter from the plaintiff. It has
further been alleged in the plaint that the contents of the e-
mail have caused immense mental shock to the plaintiff, who
happens to be a reputed lawyer and had earned his name in
the profession. It has also been averred in the plaint that
cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 09.10.2023 at
Shimla, where e-mail was accessed and published, leading
to defamation of plaintiff.
16. Thus, the above stated facts as stated in the plaint,
show that the plaintiff has certainly disclosed the cause of
action for filing the present suit. Therefore, it cannot be
contended that the plaint does not disclose the cause of
action at all. Whether the plaintiff will succeed in his suit
based on the above cause of action, is totally a different
issue, which at this stage, is not for this Court to consider
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
( 2026:HHC:47945 )
13
and decide, as such issue has to be gone into only at the
time of trial, by allowing the parties to lead evidence in
support of their respective pleadings.
17. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this
Court finds that the plaint in this case in fact discloses the
"cause of action" and consequently, the plaint cannot be
rejected as sought for by the defendant/applicant in this
application as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC.
Accordingly, this application being devoid of any merits
deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed. However the
parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. The application is disposed of accordingly.
( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
nd
November 2 , 2026
(raman)
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 16:42:47 :::CIS