According to the Supreme Court, a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC solely because it contains some contradictory allegations.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal noted that just the averments stated in the plaint and the documents presented along with the plaint are necessary to be seen in order to deal with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC.
The plaintiffs in this case filed a lawsuit in Bangalore’s City Civil Court, asking for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. The Trial Court rejected the plaint on the grounds that it does not disclose the cause of action, allowing the motion submitted by the defendants. The High Court upheld this ruling.
In an appeal before the Apex Court, it was argued that by highlighting the conflicting claims made in the plaint, the courts had addressed the issue of whether the averments in the plaint were accurate.
The court observed that the Trial Court and the High Court had addressed the issue of whether the allegations in the plaint were true by highlighting inconsistencies in those allegations.
We discover that the reason for bringing the lawsuit has been pleaded in some detail after reading the plaint, particularly paragraphs 16 and 17. It is argued how the first appellant came to have the property’s title. In paragraph 17, the facts supporting the claim of cause of action are also included. In our opinion, it is insufficient to conclude that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint simply because some of the averments in the plaint were inconsistent. Was there a cause of action disclosed in the plaint? The plaint does state the cause of action, as was already noted.
The court noted that while accepting the appeal and resuming the lawsuit, “Whether the appellants will ultimately succeed or not is another thing.
HARDIK SHARMA, B.COM LL.B
