Badri Kori vs Ramkali Kori

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
1 CR-187-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 9 OF JULY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 187 of 2026
BADRI KORI AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMKALI KORI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Ms. Neha Choudhary- Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 24.11.2025
whereby the trial court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11
C.P.C. filed by the present applicant-defendant for rejection of plaint as
being barred by law in terms of Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. which bars a fresh
suit on the same cause of action once a suit abates or is dismissed under
Order 22 CPC.
2. It is argued that a suit has been filed by the present respondent-
plaintiff Ramkali Kori stating herself to be daughter of one Nanhibai Kori
and it is mentioned therein that her deceased mother was having 1/4 share in
the joint family property of her parents and brothers and during her lifetime
her mother had executed a sale deed and Will in favour of the present
plaintiff. However, the defendants, who are the brother or transferees from
the brother of deceased mother of plaintiff, namely Nanhibai Kori hence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
2 CR-187-2026
cause of action has accrued and she be declared holder of title on the basis of

Will and sale deed executed by the deceased Nanhibai in favour of the
plaintiff.
3. The counsel for the applicant submits that the basic cause of action
and source of title mentioned in the plaint is that the mother of plaintiff
namely Nanhibai was having 1/4 share in property of her maternal home and
she has been denied 1/4 share in the property and since she executed a Will
and sale deed in favour of the present plaintiff which was within her 1/4
share but still the benefit has been denied to plaintiff by the defendants. It is
argued that the fulcrum of the case of the plaintiff is 1/4 share of Nanhibai
Kori in her maternal family property.
4. It is pointed out that earlier there was a suit filed by deceased
Nanhibai in the year 2014 in which relief was sought by Nanhibai for
declaration of her 1/4 share in her maternal property and the said suit was
dismissed as abated as no action was taken upon death of Nanhibai
for substitution of legal representatives. It is pointed out that the plaintiff of
the present case had filed an application for setting aside abatement of that
previous suit and the application of the present plaintiff to set aside
abatement and to be substituted as LR of Nanhibai has been discarded by the
trial Court in that earlier suit vide order dated 25.01.2024 and that suit has
been dismissed as abated.
5. It is argued that the proper course of action for the present plaintiff
Ramkali who had filed application for substitution in place of Nanhibai was
to have challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. However, Ramkali has not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
3 CR-187-2026
filed any appeal against dismissal of the previous suit as abated but has filed

the fresh suit and though this time the suit has been filed on the basis of Will
and sale deed executed by Nanhibai but the basic source of title is the 1/4
share of Nanhibai in her maternal property in relation to which the suit of
Nanhibai has already been dismissed as abated and therefore in terms of
Order 22 Rule 9(1) CPC, where a suit abates or is dismissed under Rule
Order 22 then no fresh suit lies on the same cause of action and therefore the
subsequent suit is barred.
6. It is further argued that though only the plaint assertions are
required to be seen for the purpose of adjudication of application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but where there is a glaring and willful suppression of
fact by the plaintiff then the Court can look into the actual facts and the
Court is not required to mechanically and pedantically read only the plaint
assertions and overlook the glaring suppressions of fact made in the plaint
which have been maliciously made only so as to make out a cause of action
and suppression is deliberate in nature. It is argued that as per Order 6 Rule 2
CPC a party is bound to approach the Court with clean hands and with
proper pleadings but in the present case the plaintiff has wilfuly suppressed
the fact of her mother filing an earlier suit against the same defendants for
the same property and for the same cause of action and for this act of willful
suppression of factum of filing previous suit the plaintiff cannot be rewarded
by rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
7. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent-
plaintiff that for the purpose of adjudication of application under Order 7
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
4 CR-187-2026
Rule 11 CPC only the plaint assertions are required to be seen and once the

plaint assertions do not contain any disclosure that there was a previous suit
filed by Nanhibai and that previous suit was dismissed as abated therefore,
the trial Court was not required to look into such facts in the application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The same has rightly been rejected because only
plaint assertions are required to be seen for adjudication of application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties and
perused the record, in the present case the plaint memo of the earlier suit is
on record and it is between the same parties or the predecessors of the same
parties. The plaint of this suit does not contain any disclosure of Nanhibai
having filed a suit and in that suit after death of Nanhibai the present plaintiff
having filed an application for substitution as legal representative and
application for setting aside abatement and those applications having been
rejected. What the plaintiff has did is that she has not challenged the
dismissal of suit filed by her mother as abated but has filed a fresh suit
suppressing the factum of dismissal of earlier suit as abated.
9. Though only plaint assertions are required to be seen but in the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC it was categorically pleaded that in
view of Order 22 Rule 9 CPC fresh suit is not maintainable and in reply
to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC there is no categorical denial
in the reply that the facts asserted therein are erroneous. It is simply said in
the reply that the assertions made by the defendants in the written statement
cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
5 CR-187-2026
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

10. Now this Court is required to see as to whether this Court has to
mechanically see only the plaint assertions in every case even when it is duly
established before the Court that there is a willful suppression of material fact
in the plaint, and suppression is only to give an impression that the suit is not
barred by law.
11. It is well stated in law that skill of the draftsman where he sets out
the cause of action cannot defeat the right of the defendant to get the plaint
rejected. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 , the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning
the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the
court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the
statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High
Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending
before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant
misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints.
The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his
power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see
that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining
the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist
Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial
courts would insist imperatively on examining the party
at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot
down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also
resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and
must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned
Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw
remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:

“It is dangerous to be too good.”"
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
6 CR-187-2026
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v.

Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 has laid great emphasis on the duty of
the parties to plead all the material facts and omission of a single material
fact leading to an incomplete cause of action and vitiating the statement of
plaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
20. There is distinction between “material facts” and
“particulars”. The words “material facts” show that the
facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action
must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads
to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or
plaint becomes bad. The distinction which has been
made between “material facts” and “particulars” was
brought by Scott, L.J. in Bruce v. Odhams Press
Ltd. [(1936) 1 KB 697 : (1936) 1 All ER 287 (CA)] in
the following passage : (All ER p. 294)
“The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the
statement of claim must state the material
facts. The word ‘material’ means necessary
for the purpose of formulating a complete
cause of action; and if any one ‘material’
statement is omitted, the statement of claim is
bad; it is ‘demurrable’ in the old phraseology,
and in the new is liable to be ‘struck out’
under R.S.C. Order 25 Rule 4
(see Philipps v. Philipps [(1878) 4 QBD 127]
); or ‘a further and better statement of claim’
may be ordered under Rule 7.
The function of ‘particulars’ under Rule 6 is
quite different. They are not to be used in
order to fill material gaps in a demurrable
statement of claim — gaps which ought to
have been filled by appropriate statements of
the various material facts which together
constitute the plaintiff's cause of action. The
use of particulars is intended to meet a further
and quite separate requirement of pleading,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
7 CR-187-2026
imposed in fairness and justice to the
defendant. Their function is to fill in the
picture of the plaintiff's cause of action with
information sufficiently detailed to put the
defendant on his guard as to the case he had
to meet and to enable him to prepare for
trial.”

The dictum of Scott, L.J. in Bruce case [(1936) 1 KB
697 : (1936) 1 All ER 287 (CA)] has been quoted with
approval by this Court in Samant N.
Balkrishna v. George Fernandez [(1969) 3 SCC 238]
and the distinction between “material facts” and
“particulars” was brought out in the following terms :
(SCC p. 250, para 29)
“The word ‘material’ shows that the facts
necessary to formulate a complete cause of
action must be stated. Omission of a single
material fact leads to an incomplete cause of
action and the statement of claim becomes
bad. The function of particulars is to present
as full a picture of the cause of action with
such further information in detail as to make
the opposite party understand the case he will
have to meet.”
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
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."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
8 CR-187-2026
13. In the present case, as already noted above, there is a deliberate

suppression of fact by the plaintiff which has been made in the plaint. The
Patna High Court in case of Bhagirath Prasad Singh v. Ram Narayan Rai,
AIR 2010 Pat 189 has held that continuance of such a suit is an abuse of
process of the Court because the real cause of action has been suppressed
and illusory cause of action has been supplied in the plaintiff. In the case of
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 , for the
plaints containing deliberate suppressions, it was held as under :-
24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a
cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed
Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 :
(2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus
litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any
camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly
vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
14. If the plaintiff of the present case had disclosed the factum of her
mother having filed earlier suit and despite the present plaintiff having
appeared in the said suit and sought substitution in place of her mother and
the said suit having been dismissed as abated then no cause of action would
have been disclosed in the present suit.
15. Therefore, it is the fit case where the plaint should be rejected, as
it is nothing, but a vexatious piece of litigation. It is accordingly rejected
being barred under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC.
16. In the above terms, the revision succeeds and is allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50447
9 CR-187-2026
nks


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-07-2026
18:18:01