Rajasthan HC: In a revision petition filed against the impugned order rejecting the second application filed for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a Single Judge Bench of Shubha Mehta, J., set the impugned order aside holding that after the rejection of the first application, if the second application is filed on a ground different from the first, then the second application is maintainable in law even if filed at the appellate stage and such application shall be decided on merits by the Court.
Background
This revision petition was filed against the order of the trial court rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
A suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction was filed by the respondent before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, contending that the disputed property was agreed to be sold by the second respondent to him, for which some part of consideration was also paid but the sale deed was not registered. Therefore, along with the suit for specific performance, a permanent injunction was also sought by the respondent that the disputed property shall not be transferred to anyone else in any manner and the petitioner shall pay the compensation regarding the disputed property to the respondent.
On the other hand, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by law, which was rejected by the trial court. Against the order rejecting the application, this revision petition was filed.
Analysis
The Court noted that the petitioner had filed 2 applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, first in October 2019, on the ground of no cause of action and notice not being served before filing of the suit; and second application was filed in February 2025 on the ground that the suit was barred by law. Both the applications were rejected and it was the contention of the respondent that when the case had reached the final stage, the second application was not maintainable in law and that the trial court had passed a reasoned order, in respect of which this revision deserves to be dismissed.
On the question of second application being maintainable or not, the Court observed that the well-established principle of law is that after the rejection of one application, a subsequent or other application with a prayer for rejection of the plaint can be filed if it is based on a ground different from the ground taken in the earlier application.
The Court noted that the grounds taken in both applications were entirely different and thus, the second application was maintainable.
The Court analysed the impugned order by the trial court and observed that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected only on the ground that the main suit is at the stage of final hearing, whereas the well-established principle of law is that an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage, including the appellate stage, and when such an application is filed, the Court shall pass an order considering only the averments in the plaint. And in support of this, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557.
The Court held that the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed with a prayer for rejection of the plaint to the extent of the petitioner, on the ground that the suit was barred by law, was maintainable and the trial court should have decided it on merits by giving findings on the grounds raised therein, instead of rejecting the application.
Therefore, the impugned order was held to be entirely contrary to the provisions of law and liable to be set aside.
Decision
The revision petition was allowed by the Court and the impugned order was set aside to the extent of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court was directed to hear both the parties on the ground mentioned, i.e., “the suit is barred by law” and to pass an order on the application on merits.
[Jaipur Development Authority v. Ravi Soni, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 3546, decided on 13-3-2026]
Judgment authored by: Justice Shubha Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: R.D. Rastogi, Devesh Yadav, Kunal Sharma and Chinmay Surolia
For Respondents: Sunil Sharma, Manoj Kumar Prajapati and Nand Kishore Sharma
