A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 when any relief independently survives.

The opposite party instituted Title Suit No. 998 of 2024 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah, seeking, inter alia, a declaration of its right to run a hotel and restaurant business and a permanent injunction against the petitioner.

The plaint alleged that the petitioner was attempting to dispossess the plaintiff and interfere with its business and customers.

The petitioner applied for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that he had no legal connection with the plaintiff’s transaction or property and that any grievance lay against the plaintiff’s lessor or vendor.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, including a specific allegation of interference on 21 May 2024.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the petitioner so as to survive scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not the plaintiff’s lessor, vendor, or transaction-counterparty and therefore could not be proceeded against for declaratory relief.

3. Whether, assuming the declaratory relief was not maintainable against the petitioner, the plaint could nevertheless be rejected in its entirety when the claim for permanent injunction disclosed a cause of action.

4. Whether the Trial Court’s order disclosed a patent error of law or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly the requirement that a plaint be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. For this purpose, the plaint must be assessed on the basis of its averments, and the correctness of the allegations is ordinarily not examined at that stage.

The Court further applied the settled rule that a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11; if at least one substantive relief survives, the plaint as a whole cannot be rejected, relying on Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain, (2025) 4 SCC 38.

The Court also considered Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), (2020) 7 SCC 366, but held that it did not assist the petitioner because the present plaint disclosed a clear cause of action.

In exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, interference is warranted only where the subordinate court’s order contains a patent error of law or is perverse.

The Court held that the plaint specifically alleged that the petitioner had attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, interfere with its hotel and restaurant business, and disturb its customers, including through an incident dated 21 May 2024.

These averments, taken as pleaded, constituted a cause of action for permanent injunction against the petitioner, irrespective of whether the petitioner was the plaintiff’s lessor or vendor.

The petitioner’s contention that the declaratory relief was not maintainable against him did not justify rejection of the entire plaint because the injunction claim independently survived.

The Trial Court had therefore correctly confined its examination to the plaint and found that no ground under Order VII Rule 11 had been established.

Its decision was neither perverse nor affected by any patent error of law, and consequently did not warrant interference under Article 227.

It held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the petitioner and that the permanent-injunction claim independently prevented rejection of the plaint.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file his written objection to the plaintiff’s injunction application within two weeks; upon filing and serving the objection, he could seek preponement of the injunction hearing, which the Trial Court was requested to decide expeditiously, preferably within one month of the preponed date.