Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra

Introduction

Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557, is a leading Supreme Court judgment on Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The case explains what material a court must consider while deciding an application for rejection of a plaint and clarifies that the averments contained in the plaint are relevant, while the defence taken in the written statement is irrelevant at that stage.

The judgment is particularly important for understanding the stage at which an application under Order VII Rule 11 should be decided and the circumstances in which a court can exercise this power.

Case Details

Case Name

Saleem Bhai & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgment

17 December 2002

Citation

(2003) 1 SCC 557

Bench

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.

Subject Matter

Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejection of plaint, cause of action, bar of law, written statement and jurisdiction of the trial court.

Facts of the Case

The appellants were defendants in civil suits instituted by the respondents.

The appellants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the plaints were liable to be rejected.

They relied particularly upon Order VII Rule 11(a) and Order VII Rule 11(d).

The appellants argued that the plaints did not disclose a cause of action and that the suits were barred by principles such as res judicata and lis pendens.

At the same time, the plaintiffs had filed applications under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, seeking judgment because the defendants had not filed their written statements.

The appellants therefore filed an application under Section 151 CPC, requesting the trial court to decide their applications under Order VII Rule 11 before requiring them to file written statements.

Decision of the Trial Court

The Trial Court dismissed the applications filed under Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC.

However, with respect to the applications under Order VII Rule 11, the Trial Court directed the appellants to file their written statements.

The appellants challenged this order before the High Court.

Decision of the High Court

The High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court.

It directed the defendants to file their written statements and observed that the Trial Court should frame issues arising from the pleadings.

The High Court further directed that the legal issues should be considered before proceeding with the trial on facts.

The appellants thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was:

Whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should be decided on the basis of the allegations contained in the plaint before the defendant is required to file a written statement.

The Court also considered whether the defence raised by the defendant could be examined while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Order VII Rule 11 provides for rejection of a plaint in specified circumstances.

The relevant grounds in the case were:

Clause (a)

Where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.

Clause (d)

Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

The Supreme Court examined how these provisions should be applied.

What Must the Court Examine?

The Supreme Court held that the relevant facts for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 are the averments contained in the plaint.

The court must examine the plaint and determine whether the allegations contained in it disclose a cause of action or show that the suit is barred by law.

The defendant’s written statement is not relevant for this determination.

Therefore:

Order VII Rule 11 → Plaint Must Be Examined

Written Statement → Irrelevant at This Stage

Written Statement Cannot Be Considered

The Supreme Court clearly held that the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) or 11(d).

This is because the court is required to examine the case as pleaded by the plaintiff.

The defence of the defendant cannot ordinarily be used to determine whether the plaint itself discloses a cause of action.

Cause of Action

Under Order VII Rule 11(a), a plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action.

The court therefore has to examine the allegations made in the plaint.

The question is whether those allegations, if accepted for the purpose of the application, disclose a legal right capable of being enforced through the suit.

The court is not required to examine the defence at this stage.

Suit Barred by Law

Order VII Rule 11(d) applies where the suit appears from the statements contained in the plaint to be barred by any law.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is therefore particularly important.

Where the alleged bar can be determined from the plaint itself, the court can reject the plaint.

However, a defendant cannot rely merely on a defence contained in the written statement to establish such a bar under Order VII Rule 11.

Power Can Be Exercised at Any Stage

Another important principle established by the judgment is that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised at any stage of the suit.

It can be exercised:

• before registration of the plaint;
• after registration;
• after summons have been issued to the defendant; or
• at any time before conclusion of the trial.

Therefore, the power is not restricted only to the initial stage of the proceedings.

No Need to Wait for Written Statement

The Supreme Court held that when an application under Order VII Rule 11 is pending, the court should decide that application on the basis of the plaint.

There is no requirement to first obtain the defendant’s written statement.

If the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, it would be unnecessary to proceed further with the suit.

Therefore:

Order VII Rule 11 Application Pending → Decide It First

Written Statement → Not Necessary for This Determination

Procedural Irregularity

The Supreme Court held that directing the defendants to file their written statements without first deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 amounted to a procedural irregularity affecting the exercise of jurisdiction.

The Trial Court was required to consider the application under Order VII Rule 11 on the basis of the plaint.

The High Court had also failed to properly consider this aspect.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court.

The matters were remitted to the Trial Court with a direction to decide the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint.

The parties were to be given an opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.

The appeals were accordingly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra is that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) or 11(d) CPC, the court must examine the averments contained in the plaint. The pleas raised by the defendant in the written statement are irrelevant at that stage. The power under Order VII Rule 11 can be exercised at any stage of the suit before its conclusion, and an application under the provision should be decided without requiring the defendant to first file a written statement.

Legal Principles Established

1. Plaint Is the Primary Document

For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court must examine the averments contained in the plaint.

2. Written Statement Is Irrelevant

The defence raised in the written statement cannot ordinarily be considered while deciding whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) or 11(d).

3. Power Can Be Exercised at Any Stage

The court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 at any stage before the conclusion of the trial.

4. No Requirement to File Written Statement First

The defendant need not necessarily file a written statement before the court decides the application under Order VII Rule 11.

5. Cause of Action Is Determined From Plaint

Whether a cause of action exists must be determined from the allegations made in the plaint.

6. Statutory Bar Must Appear From the Plaint

For Order VII Rule 11(d), the suit must appear from the statements in the plaint itself to be barred by law.

7. Order VII Rule 11 Protects Judicial Efficiency

Where a plaint is legally defective or barred by law, the court should not unnecessarily allow the suit to proceed to trial.

Important Examination Questions

What is the main principle in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra?

While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must examine the plaint and not the defence contained in the written statement.

Can the defendant’s written statement be considered under Order VII Rule 11?

No. The pleas contained in the written statement are irrelevant while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) or 11(d).

At what stage can Order VII Rule 11 be invoked?

It can be invoked at any stage of the suit before conclusion of the trial.

Is filing of a written statement necessary before deciding Order VII Rule 11?

No. The application can and should be decided on the basis of the plaint without waiting for the written statement where the issue can be determined from the plaint.

What is examined under Order VII Rule 11(a)?

Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.

What is examined under Order VII Rule 11(d)?

Whether the suit appears from the statements contained in the plaint to be barred by any law.

Examination Formula

For Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, remember:

Order VII Rule 11 → Rejection of Plaint

Plaint Averments → Relevant

Written Statement → Irrelevant

Cause of Action → From Plaint

Bar of Law → From Statements in Plaint

Power → Can Be Exercised at Any Stage

Written Statement → Need Not Be Filed First

Key Takeaways

1. Order VII Rule 11 concerns rejection of a plaint in specified circumstances.
2. The plaint is the primary document examined by the court.
3. The averments in the plaint are relevant for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11.
4. The defence contained in the written statement is irrelevant at that stage.
5. The court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 at any stage before conclusion of the trial.
6. A court need not wait for the written statement before deciding an Order VII Rule 11 application.
7. Under Rule 11(a), the court examines whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
8. Under Rule 11(d), the court examines whether the suit appears from the plaint to be barred by law.
9. The court should not unnecessarily allow a legally defective suit to proceed to trial.
10. The case is one of the leading authorities on the procedural scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Law Student and Judiciary Relevance

For examinations, remember the following sequence:

Application Under Order VII Rule 11
→ Read the Plaint
→ Examine Its Averments
→ Ignore the Written Statement
→ Determine Cause of Action or Legal Bar
→ Reject the Plaint If the Statutory Conditions Are Satisfied

The most important proposition is:

For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane and the pleas contained in the written statement are wholly irrelevant at that stage.

ALSO READ: Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I

Conclusion

Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra remains a leading authority on the proper procedure for dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The Supreme Court made it clear that the court must examine the plaint itself and determine whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit appears from the plaint to be barred by law.

The defendant cannot defeat or sustain the plaint at this preliminary stage merely by relying upon allegations contained in the written statement.

The judgment also ensures that courts do not unnecessarily delay the determination of a legally defective suit by requiring a written statement before deciding an application for rejection of the plaint.

The central lesson is:

For Order VII Rule 11, look at the plaint, not the defence.