Plaint Suppressing Dismissal of Earlier Suit as Abated Is Barred Under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC

The respondent-plaintiff, Ramkali Kori, filed a suit seeking a declaration of title over a 1/4 share of her maternal joint family property based on a Will and sale deed executed by her mother, Nanhibai Kori.

The applicant-defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred by Order 22 Rule 9 CPC.

They contended that Nanhibai had previously filed a suit in 2014 for the same 1/4 share, which was dismissed as abated after her death.

Crucially, the current plaintiff’s application to be substituted as a legal representative in that earlier suit had been rejected on 25.01.2024, and no appeal was filed.

The trial court rejected the Order 7 Rule 11 application on 24.11.2025, holding that it could only look at the plaint's assertions, which suppressed the history of the previous litigation.

1. Whether a court is strictly restricted to the four corners of the plaint assertions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC when there is evidence of "clever drafting" and willful suppression of material facts intended to create an illusion of a cause of action.

2. Whether the present suit is barred by Order 22 Rule 9 CPC due to the abatement of the previous suit on the same cause of action.

Order 22 Rule 9 CPC, which prohibits a fresh suit on the same cause of action once a suit has abated.

The principle from T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977), which dictates that "clever drafting" creating an illusion of a cause of action should be "nipped in the bud".

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. (2004) regarding the mandatory duty of courts to reject plaints that omit material facts.

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020), affirming that courts must be vigilant against camouflage and suppression in pleadings.

The High Court observed that while it is a general rule that only plaint assertions are considered for Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, this does not require the court to act "mechanically" or "pedantically" in the face of gross abuse of process.

The Court found that the plaintiff deliberately suppressed the fact that her mother’s previous suit for the same property share had abated and that her own application for substitution had been rejected.

The Court reasoned that the 1/4 share of Nanhibai was the "fulcrum" and "basic source of title" for both suits; therefore, the cause of action remained the same.

By suppressing the prior litigation, the plaintiff attempted to bypass the statutory bar under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC.

The Court held that such vexatious litigation, built on an "illusory cause of action," must be dismissed to prevent an abuse of the judicial process.

The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, allowed the Civil Revision, and ordered the rejection of the plaint.