{"id":384267,"date":"2026-05-16T13:00:34","date_gmt":"2026-05-16T07:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=384267"},"modified":"2026-05-16T13:17:57","modified_gmt":"2026-05-16T07:47:57","slug":"order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/","title":{"rendered":"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Disclaimer:<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal against the order rejecting Order 7 Rule 11 application seeking rejection of plaint for being barred by law as benami transaction, <span style=\"color: #0e101a;\">the Division Bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">R. Mahadevan*<\/span> and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ., held that the contracts executed to circumvent the law are illegal and unenforceable; courts must weed out frivolous and legally barred suits at the earliest stage by giving a meaningful reading to the plaint and accompanying documents instead of being misled by clever drafting.<\/p>\n<p>The conclusions of the Court on the rejection of the plaint are summarised as follows:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"list-style-type: decimal;\">\n<li>\n<p>An application under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523624\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 11<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC), may be decided together with a preliminary objection. Even after admission of a plaint and issuance of summons, defendants may seek rejection of the plaint or raise preliminary objections.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Trial courts must independently examine whether a plaint satisfies the requirements of Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523624\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 11<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a> before issuing summons, and admission of a plaint cannot be mechanical.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Though disputed questions of fact ordinarily require trial, courts may still examine whether the foundation of the claim is legally sustainable before directing parties to undergo trial.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The disqualification under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001548253\" target=\"_blank\">25<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002810434\" target=\"_blank\">Hindu Succession Act, 1956<\/a>, applies to both intestate and testamentary succession. A person accused of murdering the deceased cannot assert inheritance rights where the preponderance of probabilities indicates involvement in the offence.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Contracts entered into to circumvent the law are illegal and unenforceable.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Courts must weed out frivolous and legally barred suits at the earliest stage by giving a meaningful reading to the plaint and accompanying documents instead of being guided by clever drafting.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Trial courts dealing with issues relating to benami transactions must decide such questions at the earliest stage and, where a prima facie case exists, transfer the matter to the competent adjudicating authority or Appellate Tribunal.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The present civil appeal arises from the Karnataka High Court order, which reversed the trial court&#8217;s order. The trial court had allowed the application filed by Defendants 1 to 3\/appellants under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523624\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 11(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a<\/span>) and (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">d<\/span>)<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a>, and rejected the plaint for lack of any cause of action and the suit being barred under Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001562423\" target=\"_blank\">4<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001562425\" target=\"_blank\">6<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002840164\" target=\"_blank\">Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988<\/a> (Benami Act).<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The respondent\/plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the suit properties based on a will allegedly executed by the husband of Defendant 1 and father of Defendants 2 and 3, namely, K. Raghunath, along with rectification of alleged mistakes in the schedule to the will and consequential injunction reliefs.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellants\/defendants contended that the late K. Raghunath had earlier executed a registered will in favour of Appellant 1, pursuant to which the revenue records had been mutated in their favour. They further alleged that FIRs had been registered against the respondent in connection with the murder of K. Raghunath.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">During the pendency of the suit, the appellants had filed an application under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523624\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 11<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a> seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action and was barred under Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001562423\" target=\"_blank\">4<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001562425\" target=\"_blank\">6<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002840164\" target=\"_blank\">Benami Act<\/a>. The trial court had allowed the application and rejected the plaint.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Aggrieved thereby, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court, which held that the plaint averments did not attract the provisions of the Benami Act and restored the suit for adjudication on merits.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants had preferred the present civil appeal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Also Read:<\/span> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/13\/benami-transactions\/\" target=\"_blank\">Benami Transactions: Meaning and Facets | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Analysis<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">At the outset, the Court discussed the principles governing an application under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523624\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 11<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a>. The Court, while referring to the provisions and the Supreme Court judgment in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">RBANMS Educational Institution<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">B. Gunashekar<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/DH3894NW\" target=\"_blank\">2025 SCC OnLine SC 793<\/a>, stated that the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is essentially determined based on the averments contained in the plaint.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court stated that if the perusal of the plaint reveals that it is barred by law, it can be rejected, and thus, a thorough and meaningful reading of the plaint is crucial. The Court explained that a suit may be barred by law where the right asserted is either legally unavailable or its enforcement is restricted by substantive law, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions or procedures.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; font-weight: bold;\">1. Role of Courts While Admitting Suits<\/p>\n<p>The Court stated that, before admitting a plaint, the trial court must independently verify whether the plaint satisfies all legal requirements and cannot mechanically register the suit. The Court stated that during the admission stage, if the trial court, after a meaningful reading of the plaint, finds it liable to be rejected, it shall reject it without waiting for the defendant to seek rejection. The Court further stated that,<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Once the Court finds that the suit is frivolous, without jurisdiction, instituted without compliance with prerequisites, fails to disclose a real cause of action, suppresses material facts, or is barred by law but couched in clever drafting to create an illusion of a cause of action, it must reject the plaint with costs.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court pointed out that every plaint is required to be presented along with the documents relied upon in the plaint as per Order 7 Rule 14. The Court noted that documents relied upon in the plaint ordinarily form part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action, and it is therefore imperative for the plaintiff to produce such documents. The Court reiterated that a plaint may be rejected for failure to produce documents relied upon or referred to in the plaint.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court stated that all material facts constituting a complete cause of action and bearing upon the maintainability or sustainability of the suit must be specifically pleaded in the plaint. The Court clarified that the suppression of material facts, particularly when it creates an illusory cause of action or conceals a legal bar, amounts to fraud upon the Court and renders the plaint liable to summary rejection. The Court reiterated that a party suppressing material facts is not entitled to any relief and that courts must ensure that any advantage obtained through such suppression is undone and the <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">status quo ante<\/span> restored.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523626\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 13<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a> permits presentation of a fresh plaint after rejection only where the right to sue survives, such as in cases of non-disclosure of cause of action or other curable defects. The Court distinguished between &#8220;having&#8221; a cause of action and &#8220;disclosing&#8221; a cause of action and held that where the suit itself is barred by law, Rule 13 cannot assist the plaintiff. The Court further clarified that presentation of a fresh plaint does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to admission or registration of the suit, and all legal requirements, including limitation, must still be satisfied.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; font-weight: bold;\">2. Comparison Between Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523624\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 11<\/a> and Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001522994\" target=\"_blank\">14 Rule 2<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that an application for rejection of the plaint under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523624\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 11<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a> may be filed at any stage of the suit and must ordinarily be decided before proceeding further, as the grounds raised therein constitute preliminary objections. However, the Court clarified that such an application cannot be used to circumvent the consequences of failure to file a written statement within time, and filing the application does not suspend the limitation for filing the written statement. The Court further noted that even where a defendant is set ex parte, the plaintiff must still prove the case to obtain a decree.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court also observed that objections relating to jurisdiction or maintainability on the ground of statutory bar may be raised in the written statement and decided as preliminary issues under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001522994\" target=\"_blank\">14 Rule 2<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a>. The Court stated that where a pure question of law can be decided on undisputed facts without requiring evidence, the Court should determine the issue at the earliest stage to prevent abuse of process and avoid wastage of judicial time.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court, referring to <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sukhbiri Devi<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Union of India<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/9zoQDvH6\" target=\"_blank\">2022 SCC OnLine SC 1322<\/a>, reiterated that although limitation is ordinarily a mixed question of law and fact, it may be decided as a preliminary issue where the foundational facts relating to the commencement of limitation are specifically pleaded and are either admitted or undisputed. In such cases, the Court may defer settlement of other issues and dispose of the suit based on the finding on limitation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 14 Rule 2 both enable examination of the maintainability of a suit at the earliest possible stage. However, they operate in distinct procedural spheres. It held that Order 7 Rule 11 is confined to the plaint averments and documents relied upon by the plaintiff, and permits rejection where the defect or statutory bar is apparent on a meaningful reading of the plaint itself. In contrast, Order 14 Rule 2 applies after completion of pleadings and framing of issues, where the Court may decide a pure question of law arising from admitted or undisputed foundational facts without undertaking a full trial. The Court clarified that while Order 7 Rule 11 tests the sustainability of the plaint on its face, Order 14 Rule 2 concerns the adjudication of preliminary legal issues after pleadings are complete. It further observed that both provisions are intended to prevent unnecessary trials, advance procedural economy, curb abuse of process, and promote timely administration of justice by enabling courts to weed out frivolous suits at the earliest stage.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Also Read:<\/span> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-written-statement-deadline-delhi-hc\/\" target=\"_blank\">Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Does Not Extend Written Statement Deadline | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; font-weight: bold;\">3. Whether the Suit is Barred by Law<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that the appellants, in their application, had averred that the transaction between the plaintiff and K. Raghunath is a benami transaction barred under the provisions of the Benami Act. The appellants had further alleged that the will was forged and that there was a bar under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001548253\" target=\"_blank\">25<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002810434\" target=\"_blank\">Hindu Succession Act, 1956<\/a> (HSA), since K. Raghunath was allegedly murdered by the plaintiff, who has been arrayed as an accused in the criminal case.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The respondent\/plaintiff contended that the suit was founded solely on the will and that, while considering an application for rejection of the plaint, the Court was confined to the plaint averments alone. It was further contended that a fiduciary relationship existed between the respondent and the late K. Raghunath, and therefore, the transaction could not be treated as benami. The respondent had also argued that no transfer of property takes place through a will and that the objections raised by the appellants required adjudication at trial rather than summary rejection of the plaint.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court reiterated the settled position that disputed questions of fact are ordinarily adjudicated at trial. The Court highlighted that while considering an application for rejection of the plaint, the Court must determine whether any real dispute of fact actually arises and whether the suit is barred by law, even if the plaint averments are accepted at face value. The Court noted that the plaint must disclose a genuine triable issue and not merely an illusory cause of action.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; font-weight: bold;\">4. Bar to Succession to the Estate of the Deceased<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that the appellants had contended that the respondent was disqualified from inheriting the estate of the late K. Raghunath under Section 25 HSA. On the other hand, the respondent had contended that execution of a will does not amount to transfer of property and therefore the statutory bar under Section 25 would not apply.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that Sections 25 and 27 HSA disqualify a person who commits or abets the murder of another from inheriting the deceased&#8217;s property, and mandate that such a person be treated as having predeceased the intestate. The Court further noted that Section 30 recognises testamentary succession and, therefore, the disqualification under Section 25 applies equally to inheritance through a will.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court stated that the principle underlying Section 25 is founded on public policy, justice, equity, and good conscience, namely, that no person should be permitted to profit from his own wrong. The Court observed that the statutory provision merely incorporates the long-settled equitable doctrine reflected in the maxim <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ex turpi causa non oritur actio<\/span> and the rule that no person may benefit from his own wrongdoing.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court referred its judgment in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Binod Pathak<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Shankar Choudhary<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/5442vv7K\" target=\"_blank\">2025 SCC OnLine SC 1411<\/a>, where the Court explained the distinction between right arising from wrongdoing and advantages flowing from wrongdoing, and reiterated that courts must not validate gains derived from abuse of process or wrongful conduct.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court clarified that Section 25 does not require a prior criminal conviction for the disqualification to operate, as the provision imposes a civil consequence against a person who commits or abets murder. The Court stated that the issue may be examined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, independent of the stricter standard applicable in criminal proceedings. The Court noted that a catena of decisions had put culpable homicide under the expression &#8220;murder&#8221; in Section 25.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that the plaintiff had been accused of the murder of K. Raghunath and that a CBI investigation was pending, but the said fact had been suppressed in the plaint. The Court reiterated that suppression of material facts disentitles a party from relief and renders the plaint liable to rejection. The Court held that, since the suppression was apparent from the plaint itself, there was no necessity to remit the matter for trial or separate adjudication of preliminary issues, and the matter could be decided at that stage itself.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; font-weight: bold;\">5. Whether the Object of the Contract is Lawful<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">At the outset, the Court noted that as per Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001527251\" target=\"_blank\">10<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001527397\" target=\"_blank\">23<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726954\" target=\"_blank\">Contract Act, 1872<\/a>, a contract without lawful consideration or with an unlawful object is void.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that the plaint disclosed the existence of MOUs between the plaintiff and K. Raghunath to circumvent the provisions of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002880197\" target=\"_blank\">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961<\/a>, particularly the restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land. The Court noted that the plaintiff, admittedly being disentitled from directly purchasing the lands, had allegedly funded the purchases in another&#8217;s name and later sought transfer in his favour after conversion of the lands for non-agricultural use. The Court held that such an arrangement was intended to defeat the statutory mandate and was therefore hit by Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001527397\" target=\"_blank\">23<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726954\" target=\"_blank\">Contract Act, 1872<\/a>, rendering the MOUs illegal and void for being founded upon an unlawful object.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court held that the transaction, in substance, bore all the indicia of a benami arrangement prohibited under the benami law. The Court stated that although the plaint was carefully drafted as one founded on the will, both the plaint averments and the recitals in the will expressly referred to the MOUs and revealed the underlying arrangement. The Court, reiterating that substance must prevail over form, held that the plaint was wholly unsustainable in law and that the trial court had rightly rejected it.<\/p>\n<h3>Decision<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court held that the power to reject a plaint under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523624\" target=\"_blank\">7 Rule 11<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a> is a serious jurisdiction which must be exercised with due circumspection. The Court highlighted that while genuine causes should not be shut out prematurely, courts are equally duty-bound to prevent abuse of process where the pleadings themselves disclose no enforceable right or reveal a claim barred by law.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further held that, though the plaint was framed as one based on a will and succession, a meaningful reading showed that the real foundation of the claim was the assertion that the suit properties had been purchased by the late K. Raghunath with funds allegedly provided by the plaintiff and held for his benefit. It therefore held that the claim was inextricably linked to a benami arrangement barred under the Benami Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Since the transactions were already held to be benami in nature, making the MOUs illegal and void, the Court held that neither the plaintiff nor the appellants, as legal heirs, could derive any benefit therefrom. Consequently, the Court held that the said properties were liable to confiscation under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002533795\" target=\"_blank\">27<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002840164\" target=\"_blank\">Benami Act<\/a> and observed that, once a competent judicial determination declaring the transaction benami had attained finality, there was no necessity to relegate the parties to the adjudicating authority for confiscation proceedings.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;It is not uncommon in legal history that whenever the law seeks to prohibit, human ingenuity seeks to disguise. From the use of proxies in earlier times to modern layered transactions, the separation of real ownership from ostensible title has long been employed as a device to evade legal restraints. Benami transactions are but a contemporary manifestation of that tendency, where legality is outwardly simulated though never truly intended.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court held that where the statute not only prohibits such transactions but also provides for stringent consequences, the Court would be failing in its duty if it were to remain a silent spectator.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Accordingly, the Court directed the Central Government to appoint an Administrator and take over the suit properties in accordance with the law. The Court further clarified that, since the judicial determination declaring the transaction to be benami had attained finality, no court shall entertain any claim in respect of the subject properties arising out of or founded upon such benami transaction.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manjula<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">D.A. Srinivas<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/KjV87WxA\" target=\"_blank\">2026 SCC OnLine SC 831<\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-indent: 18pt; border: 2px solid black; border-radius: 10px; text-align: center; width: 50%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: #DCDCDC;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment authored by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/10\/know-thy-supreme-court-judge-justice-r-mahadevan-scc-times-legal-news-legal-research\/\" target=\"_blank\">Justice R. Mahadevan<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For the appellants:<\/span> Mahesh Thakur, AOR with Anuparna Bordoloi, Narveer Yadav, Dhanush M, Siddhartha Sati, Ajay Pal Singh, Ruchi Kumari, Akshay Kumar and Sai Tanishka K, Advocates<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For the respondent:<\/span> Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta and AOR Deepak Goel with T.M. Shivakumar and Sanjana, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">The Court directed the confiscation of the property where a claim, which was presented to be based on a will, but was in substance an attempt to obtain judicial recognition of a benami transaction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":384282,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[104297,104307,104311,50823,104312,104310,49365,70880,104296,62457,104425,104309,5363,104308],"class_list":["post-384267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-benami-act","tag-benami-transaction-through-will","tag-commercial-transactions-and-fiduciary-relationship","tag-hindu-succession-act-1956","tag-illegal-contracts-to-circumvent-law","tag-inheritance-disqualification","tag-justice-j-b-pardiwala","tag-justice-r-mahadevan","tag-o-7-r-11","tag-order-7-rule-11","tag-prohibition-of-benami-property-transactions-act-1988","tag-section-25-hindu-succession-act","tag-supreme-court","tag-testamentary-succession-and-benami-law"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>SC on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that courts must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and accompanying documents before admitting a suit, admission cannot be mechanical, where the plaint suppresses material facts, conceals a legal bar, or is cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, it must be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that courts must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and accompanying documents before admitting a suit, admission cannot be mechanical, where the plaint suppresses material facts, conceals a legal bar, or is cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, it must be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-16T07:30:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-16T07:47:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-16T07:30:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-16T07:47:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2924,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Benami Act\",\"benami transaction through Will\",\"commercial transactions and fiduciary relationship\",\"Hindu Succession Act 1956\",\"illegal contracts to circumvent law\",\"inheritance disqualification\",\"Justice J.B. Pardiwala\",\"justice R. mahadevan\",\"O 7 R 11\",\"Order 7 Rule 11\",\"Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988\",\"Section 25 Hindu Succession Act\",\"Supreme Court\",\"testamentary succession and Benami law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-16T07:30:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-16T07:47:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court holds that courts must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and accompanying documents before admitting a suit, admission cannot be mechanical, where the plaint suppresses material facts, conceals a legal bar, or is cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, it must be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint meaningful reading\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/16\\\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court holds that courts must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and accompanying documents before admitting a suit, admission cannot be mechanical, where the plaint suppresses material facts, conceals a legal bar, or is cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, it must be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11","og_description":"Supreme Court holds that courts must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and accompanying documents before admitting a suit, admission cannot be mechanical, where the plaint suppresses material facts, conceals a legal bar, or is cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, it must be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-05-16T07:30:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-16T07:47:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11","datePublished":"2026-05-16T07:30:34+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-16T07:47:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/"},"wordCount":2924,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp","keywords":["Benami Act","benami transaction through Will","commercial transactions and fiduciary relationship","Hindu Succession Act 1956","illegal contracts to circumvent law","inheritance disqualification","Justice J.B. Pardiwala","justice R. mahadevan","O 7 R 11","Order 7 Rule 11","Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988","Section 25 Hindu Succession Act","Supreme Court","testamentary succession and Benami law"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/","name":"SC on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp","datePublished":"2026-05-16T07:30:34+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-16T07:47:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Supreme Court holds that courts must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and accompanying documents before admitting a suit, admission cannot be mechanical, where the plaint suppresses material facts, conceals a legal bar, or is cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, it must be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint meaningful reading"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/16\/order-7-rule-11-cpc-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading-benami-bar\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Clever Drafting Cannot Save a Benami Claim: Supreme Court on Meaningful Reading of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC-rejection-of-plaint-meaningful-reading.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384267","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=384267"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384267\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":384284,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384267\/revisions\/384284"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/384282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=384267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=384267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=384267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}