A suit not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC must be converted into an ordinary recovery suit, not rejected.

The appellant/plaintiff alleged that he advanced a friendly loan of ₹5 lakhs to the respondent for the respondent’s father’s Hajj expenses.

The respondent allegedly issued a cheque for ₹4 lakhs in December 2024 towards part discharge of the liability and promised to pay the remaining ₹1 lakh in cash.

At the respondent’s request, allegedly made through respectable persons, the appellant did not present the cheque for encashment; the cheque thereafter became stale and the respondent refused to repay the amount.

The appellant instituted a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of ₹4 lakhs.

The respondent sought leave to defend, raising, inter alia, disputes concerning a brick-kiln partnership, an alleged counter-liability of ₹24.76 lakhs, possession of post-dated cheques in a fiduciary relationship, and forgery of the cheque signature.

The Trial Court accepted the objection and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that no cause of action under Order XXXVII CPC arose because the cheque had never been presented or dishonoured.

Whether a suit under Order XXXVII CPC based on a cheque is maintainable when the cheque was never presented for encashment and consequently was not dishonoured?

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the plaint otherwise disclosed an underlying loan transaction, acknowledgment of debt, and refusal to repay?

Whether, upon finding that the summary procedure under Order XXXVII CPC was unavailable, the Trial Court ought to have converted or proceeded with the matter as an ordinary money-recovery suit instead of rejecting the plaint?

Order XXXVII CPC provides a special summary procedure available only when its prescribed conditions are satisfied; in a cheque-based claim, presentation and dishonour of the cheque are necessary for maintaining a suit under that provision, as recognised in Rajesh Madanlal Anand v. Rakesh Madanlal Anand & Anr., CR No. 30/2018, and Baldev Singh v. Rare Fuel Automobile Technologies (P) Ltd., 119 (2005) DLT 44.

Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is warranted only where the plaint, read as a whole, discloses no cause of action; the court should not reject a plaint merely because the chosen procedural remedy is unavailable when the pleadings disclose a substantive claim for recovery.

Where the requirements of Order XXXVII CPC are not fulfilled or substantial triable issues arise, the suit may be treated and tried as an ordinary suit rather than being dismissed at the threshold.

The High Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to prevent extinguishment of an otherwise triable claim and to secure complete justice.

The Court upheld the Trial Court’s legal proposition that a cheque-based summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC requires presentation and dishonour of the cheque.

Since the appellant admittedly chose not to present the cheque pursuant to the respondent’s alleged assurance of cash payment, the cheque was stale and no cause of action based on its dishonour arose under the summary procedure.

Nevertheless, the Court held that the plaint had to be read as a whole.

Its allegations disclosed advancement of a ₹5-lakh loan, issuance of a ₹4-lakh cheque as part payment or acknowledgment of the debt, and subsequent refusal to repay.

These averments constituted a complete cause of action for an ordinary money-recovery suit, independent of any dishonour of the cheque.

Further, the respondent’s allegations concerning partnership accounts, an alleged liability of ₹24.76 lakhs, fiduciary possession of cheques, and forgery raised serious triable issues.

Accordingly, the proper procedural consequence of the failure of the Order XXXVII requirements was to proceed with the matter as an ordinary suit, not to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

However, the plaint disclosed an independent and complete cause of action for recovery of money based on the underlying loan and the respondent’s alleged refusal to repay.

The Trial Court’s judgment and decree dated 12 August 2025 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were therefore set aside.

The suit was restored to its original number and directed to be tried as an ordinary money-recovery suit.

The respondent was granted four weeks from the date of appearance to file the written statement, and the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 7 September 2026.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly.