Delhi High Court: In a petition where the question arose for consideration was whether the documents filed with the plaint could be considered for determining whether the plaint disclosed the cause of action or not, Ravinder Dudeja, J.*, stated that the plaint was not to be looked in isolation distinct from the documents relied upon with the plaint. Since the respondent had placed on record all the relevant documents which would furnish the requisite details regarding the goods booked by the petitioner and sent by the respondent. Therefore, the Court stated that it could not be said that plaint did not disclose the cause of action. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
Background
In the present case, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 21,28,478, alleging that petitioner took the logistic services of the respondent and sent goods of his clients to foreign destinations through respondent by air. However, the petitioner had failed to make the above said payment for the same, which was now outstanding against the petitioner.
In his written statement, the petitioner raised various preliminary legal objections against the maintainability of the suit, and one such objection was that the plaint was vague, ambiguous and lacked in material particulars regarding the claim. Hence, it did not disclose a valid cause of action.
On 12-10-2023, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking rejection of the plaint for non-disclosure of valid cause of action, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Commercial Court-03 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide impugned order dated 12-10-2023. Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The question for consideration in the present case was whether the documents filed with the plaint could be considered for determining whether the plaint disclosed cause of action.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was settled law that while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments made in the application were germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement were irrelevant at that stage. The Court stated that if on an entire reading of the plaint, it was found that the suit was vexatious in the sense that it did not disclose any right to sue, the Court should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
The Court stated that, it might be true that Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, authorized the Court to reject a plaint on failure to disclose a cause of action but the same would not mean that the averments made therein or a document upon which reliance was placed although disclosed a cause of action, the plaint would still be rejected on the ground that such averments were not sufficient to prove the facts stated for obtaining relief claimed in the suit.
The Court stated that the plaint was not to be looked in isolation distinct from the documents relied upon with the plaint. Since the respondent had placed on record all the relevant documents which would furnish the requisite details regarding the goods booked by the petitioner and sent by the respondent. Therefore, it could not be said that plaint did not disclose the cause of action.
The Court stated that the phrase “does not disclose the cause of action” had to be very narrowly construed. The rejection of plaint at the threshold entailed very serious consequences. Therefore, this power had to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and ought to be used only when the Court was absolutely sure that plaintiff did not have any arguable case at all.
Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
[Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services (P) Ltd., CM(M) 147 of 2024, decided on 8-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: R. K. Trakru, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Kamal Gupta and Neeraj Gupta, Advocates.
