The Orissa High Court, in a significant judgment delivered by Justice Ananda Chandra Behera, clarified a key legal distinction in civil litigation. The Court emphasized that under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a plaint can be rejected only for the non-disclosure of a cause of action—not merely for the non-existence of one.
“So, non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, whereas, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit...”
— Justice A.C. Behera, Orissa High Court
Background of the Case
The legal dispute emerged in a suit where the plaintiffs sought declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, and permanent injunction. They claimed in their plaint that the cause of action had arisen, giving them the right to seek judicial relief.
Read Also:- Family Courts Operate on Principles of Delay and Laches, Not Bound by Limitation Act: Orissa High Court
The petitioner, who was listed as Defendant No.3, filed an application on January 5, 2024, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the plaint lacked a valid cause of action. The main contention was that the plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed at the threshold as it was devoid of any legal grounds.
However, the plaintiffs opposed this move, maintaining that the plaint had sufficiently disclosed the cause of action, and the issue should be examined through a full trial, not at the preliminary stage.
The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, after examining the pleadings and hearing both parties, dismissed the defendant’s application on March 13, 2024. The trial court held that the plaint did disclose a cause of action, and therefore, the petition for rejection was not maintainable.
Unhappy with this decision, the petitioner approached the Orissa High Court under Section 115 of the CPC, challenging the trial court’s order.
Justice Behera dealt with one central legal question:
Can a plaint be rejected solely on the basis of non-existence of cause of action?
The Court observed that:
“Whether a plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact.”
This means that the determination of cause of action must be made from the content of the plaint itself. If the plaint, when read as a whole, provides a factual foundation for legal relief, then it discloses a cause of action—even if that cause is weak or possibly unsuccessful during trial.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court: Police Dog Evidence is Hearsay and Requires Corroboration
Importantly, the Court stated that Order VII Rule 11 CPC allows rejection only where the plaint fails to disclose any cause of action on its face. It does not apply where a court believes there is no actual cause of action. The latter is a matter for trial and cannot be decided at the stage of admission.
To support this legal position, the Court relied on:
- Jageshwari Devi & Ors. v. Shatrughan Ram, a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the requirement of disclosure in the plaint
- Kishore Kumar v. Ishar Dass, 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 250, where the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court held similarly
These judgments distinguish between lack of disclosure (which leads to rejection) and perceived lack of merit (which must be addressed during the trial process).
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Declares Marriage Beyond Repair: Grants Divorce in Case of Mental Cruelty
Upon examining the plaint, especially Paragraph 16, the High Court found that the cause of action had indeed been disclosed. The Court concluded that the petitioner's plea was based on non-existence rather than non-disclosure of the cause of action.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s decision.
“Since the plaint discloses a clear cause of action, the rejection of the plaint is not justified at this preliminary stage.”
— Orissa High Court, April 3, 2025
Case Title: Niharkanti Mishra v. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik & Ors.
Case No: C.R.P. No. 19 of 2024
Date of Judgment: April 03, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. B. Baug, Advocate
