Order VII Rule 11 Requires Courts to Assess the Plaint, Not Defendants’ Contrary Genealogical Evidence

The respondents filed a suit seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that a gift deed dated 6 March 2021 was null and void and not binding on them, a declaration of ownership, and partition of the property.

The petitioners sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that no relationship existed between the parties and that the plaintiffs’ genealogical tree was incorrect.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, and the petitioners challenged that order in this revision petition.

1. Whether, on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court may rely on a genealogical tree or other material produced by the defendants to challenge the plaintiffs’ pleaded relationship and cause of action.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint warranted interference in revision.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC governs rejection of a plaint. In deciding an application under that provision, the court must examine the plaint averments and documents filed with the plaint; it cannot rely on the written statement or other documents produced by the defendants.

The petition was brought under Section 115 CPC, which provides the procedural basis for the revision.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The petitioners’ contention that the parties were unrelated and that the genealogical tree pleaded by the plaintiffs was incorrect depended on material they had produced with their written statement or application.

Because that material was outside the permissible scope of an Order VII Rule 11 inquiry, it could not provide a basis for rejecting the plaint. The High Court accordingly found that the Trial Court had correctly dismissed the application and that no ground for revisionary interference was made out.

It dismissed the civil revision petition and closed any pending interlocutory applications.