G. Pazhanivel vs S. Thilagavathy
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 1197
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.13154 OF 2026
G. PAZHANIVEL APPELLANT
VERSUS
S. THILAGAVATHY RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J
1. This appeal questions the correctness of the order passed by
the trial Court and upheld by the High Court rejecting the plaint
in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
1
Procedure, 1908 prior to registration of the civil suit.
2. The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit
property, more particularly described in the schedule annexed to
the plaint. The same is a piece of land claimed to be owned by the
plaintiff. It is alleged that pursuant to a registered Settlement Deed
dated 26.02.2021, the suit property was settled in favour of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ABHINAV KUMAR
Date: 2026.11.05
14:35:21 IST
Reason:
1
For short, ‘the Code’
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 1 of 19
plaintiff by his son. The plaintiff being in need of money borrowed
an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- from the husband of the respondent-
defendant at interest rate of 24% per month. It is the case of the
plaintiff that on the insistence of the defendant’s husband, a sale
deed of the suit property was got registered on 15.03.2021 in the
name of the defendant. Despite the aforesaid, the possession of the
suit property continued with the plaintiff. It is the further case of
the plaintiff that the sale deed was executed by way of security for
the amount borrowed from the defendant’s husband.
Subsequently, the plaintiff was in a position to repay the amount
borrowed. He, therefore, offered to repay the loan amount of
₹ 25,00,000/- with interest. However, the defendant avoided to
execute a sale deed in the plaintiff’s favour. The defendant also
attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property on
25.05.2025. On this cause of action, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid
suit seeking a decree for declaration of his title to the suit property
and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The prayers made in
the suit read as under:
“VI. The plaintiff therefore prays that a decree may be passed in his
favour
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 2 of 19
i) Declaring plaintiff’s title to the suit property and for permanent
injunction to restrain the defendant and his men, agents and
servants by a decree of permanent injunction not to disturb
plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property,
ii) Redeeming the mortgage deed, styled as sale deed dated
15.03.2021 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Kadampuliyur
as document No: 927/2021 in book No: I
iii) Directing the defendant to execute a sale deed, reconveying the
suit property to plaintiff by a decree of mandatory injunction,
iv) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the cost of this suit
and
v) Granting all other just and necessary reliefs.”
3. It appears that on presentation of the suit, the same came up
before the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. Prior to the
suit being registered, the learned Principal District Judge heard
the plaintiff and perused the documents filed along with the plaint.
On the ground that the sale deed dated 15.03.2021 did not contain
any provision for re-sale of the suit property and as no agreement
to that effect was filed by the plaintiff, it was held that the
defendant had the full right of enjoyment of the suit property by
virtue of the said sale deed. For these reasons, the plaint was
rejected and refund of court fees was directed. This order was
passed in Unnumbered O.S. being 19R Nos.8886/2025, dt.
20.06.2025, and 8973/2025, dt. 23.06.2025.
4. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint,
preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 3 of 19
2
Judicature at Madras . The Division Bench was of the view that
rejection of the plaint by the trial Court was proper for the reason
that neither from the settlement deed executed by the plaintiff’s
son nor from the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of
the defendant could an inference be drawn that the sale deed
executed by the plaintiff was in the nature of a mortgage deed or a
deed of conditional sale with right to reconvey the property. It held
that for lack of cause of action, the plaint was rightly rejected. It
further noted that since the suit was not numbered and the
plaintiff was held entitled to refund of the court fees, similar
concession was extended to the plaintiff in the appeal. Being
aggrieved, the plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid judgment in
this appeal.
5. Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff
submitted that the High Court committed an error in rejecting the
plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
prior to registration of the suit. At the stage of registration of the
suit, what was only required to be examined was whether the
plaint complied with the requirements of Order VII of the Code. At
2
For short, ‘the High Court’
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 4 of 19
that stage, it was not permissible to examine the plaint in detail
and thereafter proceed to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code. An order rejecting a plaint had serious
consequences and, therefore, such power ought to be exercised
after completion of the ministerial act of registration of the plaint.
Inviting attention to the consistent view taken by the High Court
in this regard as reflected in its decisions in Selvaraj Vs.
3
Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited and The
Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the District
4
Collector Namakkal and others Vs. Ponnusamy , it was
submitted that the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions was
not being followed. While it was true that the power under Rule 11
of Order VII could be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, it
could not have been exercised even prior to registration of the suit.
Referring to the decision in Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar
5
Gupta , it was urged that dismissal of the suit without a trial was
unwarranted.
3
CRP(MD) No.915 of 2020
4
2026:MHC:245
5
2010 INSC 651
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 5 of 19
Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was urged that on a
complete reading of the plaint, it was clear that it did disclose a
cause of action for being tried. Merely by referring to the settlement
deed and the sale deed executed by the plaintiff, the plaint could
not have been rejected. Since it was the case of the plaintiff, as
pleaded, that the sale deed was executed only by way of security
for the amount borrowed from the defendant’s husband and the
plaintiff continued in possession, rejection of the plaint at the
threshold was not warranted. He, therefore, submitted that the
impugned orders be set aside and the suit be restored for being
tried in accordance with law.
6. On the other hand, Ms. G. Indira, learned counsel appearing
for the defendant supported the rejection of the plaint by the trial
Court. She submitted that the registered sale deed dated
15.03.2021 clearly indicated that the plaintiff had outrightly sold
the suit property to the defendant. No inference, whatsoever, could
be drawn that the sale deed was executed by way of security. In
absence of any document indicating the defendant’s intention to
reconvey the property, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the
plaint. Exercise of such power by the trial Court even prior to
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 6 of 19
registration of the plaint could not be questioned in such
circumstances. There being no bar to the exercise of power under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code at any stage, the same was rightly
exercised by the trial Court prior to registration of the plaint. No
purpose would have been served by registering the plaint and
thereafter rejecting it for want of cause of action. It was, thus,
submitted that no interference was called for with the order passed
by the trial Court rejecting the plaint that was upheld by the High
Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have
also perused the documents on record. Having considered the
contentions as urged, we are of the view that the trial Court erred
in rejecting the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code after entering into the merits of the case and without
indicating how the plaint was liable to be rejected in a summary
manner. The High Court too erred in affirming the order of the trial
Court. The suit, in our opinion warranted an adjudication on
merits.
8. Under the Code, the institution of a suit with the presentation
of a plaint and admission of that plaint are two stages that have
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 7 of 19
been separately placed. Order IV refers to institution of suits.
Under Rule 1(1) of Order IV, a suit is required to be instituted by
presenting a plaint in duplicate to the Court or such officer as it
appoints in this behalf. Rule 1(2) of Order IV requires every plaint
to comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII insofar as
they are applicable. Sub-rule 1(3) of Order IV lays down that a
plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies
with the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Order IV. It is also
material to note that as per Rule 2 of Order IV, the particulars of
every suit are required to be entered in a book to be kept for that
purpose called the Register of Civil Suits. The entries made therein
are required to be numbered in every year according to the order
in which the plaints are admitted. This provision would indicate
that the Register of Suits consists of various entries made serially
in the sequence in which the plaints are admitted.
9. Order V Rule 1(1) prescribes for issuance of summons to a
defendant to appear and answer the claim made in a suit that has
been duly instituted. Thereafter, Order VII Rule 9 of the Code
prescribes the procedure on a plaint being admitted. It lays down
that where the Court orders the summons to be served on the
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 8 of 19
defendants in the manner provided in Rule 9 of Order V, the
plaintiff is required to present as many copies of the plaint as there
are defendants, within seven days from the date of such order
along with requisite fee for service of summons on the defendants.
10. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the power under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code could not have been exercised by the
trial Court at the pre-registration stage of the suit. According to
the plaintiff, only after registration of the plaint, the said aspect
could be gone into by the trial Court. This contention made on
behalf of the plaintiff cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal
position in this regard. In T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal
6
and another , this Court held that at the first hearing of a suit,
the trial Court could exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code, if necessary, by examining a party under Order X of the
Code. It was observed as under:
“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 VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. 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 X,
C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The
trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the
6
1977 INSC 204
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 9 of 19
first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest
stage.”
10.1 In Saleem Bhai and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and
7
others , this Court held in clear terms that the trial Court could
exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code even prior to
the plaint being registered or after issuance of summons to the
defendants at any time before conclusion of the trial. It was
observed as under:
“A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. makes it clear 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 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. 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 Rule
11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the plaint are germane; the
pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be
wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written
statement without deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of
jurisdiction by the trial court.”
[emphasis supplied by us]
10.2 Similarly, in Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju Vs.
8
Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy & Others , this position
was reiterated by observing as under:
“11. Ordinarily, an application for rejection of election petition in
limine , purportedly under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of
cause of action, ought to proceed at the threshold. For, it has to be
7
2002 INSC 554
8
2018 INSC 249
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 10 of 19
considered only on the basis of institutional defects in the election
petition in reference to the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (f) of
Rule 11. Indeed, non-disclosure of cause of action is covered by
clause (a) therein. Concededly, Order VII of the CPC generally deals
with the institution of a plaint. It delineates the requirements
regarding the particulars to be contained in the plaint, relief to be
specifically stated, for relief to be founded on separate grounds,
procedure on admitting plaint, and includes return of plaint. The
rejection of plaint follows the procedure on admitting plaint or even
before admitting the same, if the court on presentation of the plaint
is of the view that the same does not fulfill the statutory and
institutional requirements referred to in clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11.
The power bestowed in the court in terms of Rule 11 may also be
exercised by the court on a formal application moved by the
defendant after being served with the summons to appear before the
Court.”
[emphasis supplied by us]
10.3 Yet again, in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust &
Educational Charitable Society Vs. M/s Ponniamman
9
Educational Trust , the view that a plaint could be rejected even
before issuance of summons to the defendants was reiterated. It
was observed as under:
“To reject the plaint even before registration of the plaint on one or
more grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the other
defendants need not necessarily be heard at all as it does not affect
their rights. As a matter of fact, this Court in Saleem Bhai (supra)
held that the plaint can be rejected even before the issuance of
summons. This Court has taken a view that the trial Court can
exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code at any stage
of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuance of
summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of
the trial. We respectfully agree with the said view and reiterate the
same.”
9
2012 INSC 264
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 11 of 19
11. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the power to
reject a plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings commencing from
presentation of a plaint followed by its registration and any stage
thereafter. In a given case, such power may be exercised even prior
to registration of the plaint. Even otherwise, we may observe that
formal registration of a plaint by itself would not clothe the plaint
with a shield of invincibility as its maintainability can always be
questioned at any stage in exercise of power under Order VII Rule
11 of the Code. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the power
to reject a plaint could be exercised only after registration of the
suit cannot be accepted.
12. Turning now to the impugned order passed by the trial Court
rejecting the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code, it may be noted that the trial Court has not indicated
any specific clause of Rule 11 under which the plaint was being
rejected. The order of the trial Court does not indicate as to
whether the plaint was rejected on the ground that it did not
disclose a cause of action or that the suit appeared from a
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 12 of 19
statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The short order
passed by the trial Court reads thus:
“2. Heard plaintiff’s side. Perused the case records. The plaintiff
pleaded that he executed a sale deed, but on condition to reconvey
on payment of the sale consideration amount with interest which is
practice in their locality. The sale deed does not contain the resale
provision. No agreement is filed by the plaintiff in mark of agreeing
for resale. Further, the terms of the sale deed dated 15.03.2021
reveals that the defendant is given full right of enjoyment and
alienation to his choice. Hence, considering all these aspects, the
plaint is rejected. Refund the Court Fees as per law.”
13. To consider whether the plaint warranted rejection in a
summary manner, we may consider the averments made in the
plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that pursuant to a settlement
deed dated 26.02.2021, the suit property was settled in favour of
the plaintiff by his son. As the plaintiff was in need of financial
help, he had borrowed an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- from the
defendant’s husband. It is pleaded that the said amount was
borrowed as per usage and custom with interest at the rate of 24%
per month. A sale deed was executed by way of security for the
amount borrowed and only to give the transaction a colour of
reality. It was further specifically pleaded that even after execution
of the sale deed by the plaintiff, he continued in possession of the
suit property. Despite the plaintiff’s willingness to repay the loan
amount with accrued interest, the defendant had been avoiding to
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 13 of 19
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and was further
attempting to take possession of the suit property. On this cause
of action, the suit seeking declaration of the plaintiff’s title,
redemption of mortgage and permanent injunction so as to protect
the plaintiff’s possession was filed. A further mandatory injunction
was sought seeking a direction to the defendant to execute a sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff by reconveying the property to him.
The plaintiff also indicated his readiness to deposit the loan
amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- with accrued interest.
14. On a meaningful reading of the entire plaint, it is evident that
the same discloses a cause of action. The suit does not appear from
any statement made in the plaint that it is barred by law. Besides
the prayer for redemption of the mortgage deed styled as sale deed
dated 15.03.2021, the plaintiff had also sought the relief of
permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendant, her agents
and servants from disturbing his peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. Another prayer made was to direct
the defendant to execute a sale deed reconveying the suit property
to the plaintiff. According to the trial Court, since the sale deed
executed by the plaintiff did not contain a provision for re-sale nor
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 14 of 19
was any agreement filed by the plaintiff indicating the defendant’s
agreement for such re-sale, the plaint was liable to be rejected.
Firstly, the trial Court failed to notice the various prayers
made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It merely proceeded on the basis
that the suit as filed was simplicitor for redemption of the mortgage
deed styled as a sale deed. Secondly, it was not permissible for the
trial Court to ignore material averments made in the plaint nor
could it refuse to read the plaint as a whole. In the wake of specific
pleadings made in the plaint disclosing a cause of action for filing
the suit and seeking various reliefs, the plaint was not liable to be
rejected in a summary manner by the trial Court.
15. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the High Court
besides reiterating what was observed by the trial Court further
held that for lack of cause of action, the plaint was rightly rejected
by the trial Court. As observed earlier, the trial Court did not
indicate in its order the reason for rejection of the plaint. Before
the High Court, a specific ground was raised by the plaintiff that
without permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence and substantiate
his pleadings, the plaint could not have been rejected. The said
ground of challenge has not been considered by the High Court.
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 15 of 19
16. We, therefore, find that without considering the plaint as a
whole and without its meaningful reading, the Courts have
rejected the plaint. It would be a different matter that according to
the trial Court, the plaintiff was not likely to finally succeed in the
suit and that the suit would be dismissed after trial. That
assumption cannot be made the basis for rejection of a plaint,
especially when some cause of action is disclosed therein.
Likelihood of a suit being dismissed after trial does not furnish a
ground for the Court to reject the plaint prior to the trial. If a plaint
discloses a cause of action, which it does in the present case, and
the suit does not appear to be barred by any law in view of
statements made in the plaint, it has to go for trial. We may in this
regard refer to the decision of this Court in Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay
10
Kumar and others wherein it was held that there was an
inherent right in every person to bring a suit of civil nature, unless
barred by statute. The rejection of the plaint in such manner is,
therefore, found unsustainable. In our view, no ground for
rejection of the plaint was made out as required by the provisions
of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
10
1974 INSC 87
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 16 of 19
17. Having found that in a given case, a plaint could be rejected
even prior to its registration, it would be in the interest of
administration of justice that such rejection of a plaint at a stage
prior to its registration also ought to be duly recorded. Rejection of
a plaint has the character of a ‘decree’ as defined by Section 2(2)
of the Code and, therefore, permitting rejection of a plaint in an
unregistered or unnumbered proceeding to go unnoticed without
any record has its own disadvantages. The record of an
unregistered or unnumbered plaint would be necessary in case an
order rejecting a plaint is questioned in appeal and the record of
the trial Court is summoned. In other words, a record of plaints
that are rejected prior to their registration also ought to be
maintained. This would facilitate the availability of some record of
proceedings initiated by a plaintiff at an earlier point of time.
Similarly, a defendant would also have information of the rejection
of a plaint filed earlier in any subsequent proceeding filed by that
plaintiff based on the same cause of action, which is permissible
under Order VII Rule 13 of the Code.
18. Our attention was invited to the decision of a learned Single
Judge of the High Court in Selvaraj . While holding that a
(supra)
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 17 of 19
plaint could be rejected prior to it being numbered and entered in
the Register of Suits, the Court observed that a roving enquiry into
the merits of the matter was not called for. The learned Senior
The
Advocate for the plaintiff also referred to the decision in
Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the District
Collector Namakkal and others (supra) wherein the suitability
and requirement of numbering a plaint even when it is rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on demurrer has been
emphasised. The concerns expressed therein are material thus
highlighting the importance of there being some record of
proceedings even when a plaint is rejected at a stage prior to its
registration.
19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in Unnumbered O.S. (19R
Nos.8886/2025, dt. 20.06.2025, and 8973/2025, dt. 23.06.2025)
dated 11.07.2025 as well as the judgment dated 16.10.2025
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in A.S. No.970 of
2025 are set aside. The plaint is restored for being duly registered.
The suit thereafter shall be decided in accordance with law. It is
clarified that any observations made hereinabove shall not be
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 18 of 19
treated as an expression on the merits of the case and the suit
shall be decided uninfluenced by the same.
20. We deem it necessary to direct that whenever the trial Court
rejects a plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code prior to registration of the plaint, the fact that such plaint
stands rejected shall be duly recorded in a register maintained for
such purpose under Order IV Rule 2 of the Code. In case such
provision has not been made in the concerned Civil Manual or the
applicable Rules, the High Courts may in exercise of its power
conferred by Section 122 of the Code take appropriate steps in that
regard.
21. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the
High Courts and the Director of the State Judicial Academies for
necessary circulation and follow up steps.
22. The Civil Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications are disposed of.
…...………………………..J.
[ UJJAL BHUYAN ]
.…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
NOVEMBER 5, 2026.
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Page 19 of 19