No Partial Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Delhi High Court Clarifies

Delhi High Court decision explaining the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, reiterating that courts cannot partially reject a plaint and that the validity and interpretation of a joint Will must be examined during trial and not at the threshold stage.

In a significant ruling that reinforces procedural safeguards in civil litigation, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that plaints cannot be rejected partially under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This judgment provides crucial guidance on when courts can reject plaints at the preliminary stage and the limitations on such powers.

Case Background: Family Property Dispute

The case involves a family property dispute where plaintiffs Kanak Trakru and Anmol Trakru, who are grandchildren of the testators, filed a suit seeking partition of property based on a Will executed by their grandparents Avtar Krishen Trakru and Raj Dulari Trakru dated March 1, 2017.

The plaintiffs claimed their entitlement to the property under the Will. Alternatively, they sought partition declaring the suit property as coparcenary/ancestral property belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), claiming 1/12th share each in case the Will was held invalid.

Key Legal Issues Addressed

The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on multiple grounds:

1. Lack of Adequate Pleadings: Failure to plead details about the existence of HUF and properties being owned by HUF.

2. No Cause of Action: Grandchildren cannot seek partition during their father's lifetime.

3. Nature of Joint Will: The property became self-acquired property of the surviving testator after the first testator's death.

The Court's Landmark Ruling

1. No Partial Rejection of Plaint Permitted

The Court firmly held that there cannot be a partial rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Even if certain alternative prayers or claims lack adequate pleadings, as long as the main prayer discloses a cause of action, the entire suit must proceed to trial.

The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao vs. Madan Mohan Rao (2023), which clearly established this principle:

"This cannot elevate itself into a Rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11. In all such cases, if the plaint survives against certain Defendants and/or properties, Order VII Rule 11 will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must them proceed to trial."

2. Limited Scope of Order VII Rule 11 Examination

The Court emphasized that applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be decided based solely on pleadings in the plaint, without delving into:

• Complicated legal questions

• Issues of interpretation (such as interpreting a Will)

• Factual disputes requiring evidence

• Defenses that may be raised by defendants

The Court quoted the Supreme Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I (2004):

"In ascertaining whether the plaint shows a cause of action, the court is not required to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact... The court has not to see whether the claim made by the petitioner is likely to succeed: it has merely to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the petition, if accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to the relief he claims."

3. The Cause of Action Test

The Court clarified that when examining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action:

• All averments in the plaint must be taken as correct

• The test is whether, if these averments are true, a decree can be passed

• The court cannot consider defenses or enter into merits at this stage

In this case, since the primary prayer was based on the Will where plaintiffs were named beneficiaries, a cause of action was clearly disclosed, regardless of issues with alternative prayers.

Application to the Present Case

The Court dismissed the application for rejection of plaint, holding:

1. Will-Based Claim Sufficient: The main prayer based on the Will dated March 1, 2017, where plaintiffs were beneficiaries, disclosed a valid cause of action.

2. Alternative Prayer Irrelevant: Even if the alternative prayer regarding HUF property lacked adequate details, this could not justify rejecting the entire plaint.

3. Interpretation Not Permitted: The effect of the joint Will and whether property became self-acquired required interpretation of complex legal questions, which cannot be done at this preliminary stage.

4. Probate Pending: The Court noted that probate proceedings were pending, making it inappropriate to prejudge the validity of the Will

Conclusion

The principle that plaints cannot be partially rejected is particularly significant for complex litigation involving multiple claims and alternative prayers. It ensures that litigants are not denied justice based on technical deficiencies in alternative grounds when their primary claim discloses a valid cause of action.

Case Details

Case Name: Kanak Trakru & Anr. vs. Renu Trakru Singla & Ors.

Case Number: CS(OS) 216/2025, I.A. 23815/2025

Court: High Court of Delhi

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan

Judgment Date: January 28, 2026

Find the judgment here

KANAK TRAKRU VS RENU TRAKRU SINGLA.pdf

Download PDF • 552KB