Introduction:

In the matter of Niharkanti Mishra v. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik & Others [C.R.P. No. 19 of 2024], the Orissa High Court, through a single-judge bench comprising Justice Ananda Chandra Behera, has reiterated the foundational distinction between the concepts of “non-existence” and “non-disclosure” of cause of action while adjudicating on a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The High Court held that for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, it is only the non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint that can be a valid ground, not the alleged non-existence of cause of action, which is a matter requiring evidence and adjudication. The case arose when the petitioner, Defendant No.3 in the original civil suit, approached the High Court challenging the dismissal of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. The plaintiffs in the suit had sought a declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, and a permanent injunction. They had narrated in their plaint, especially in Paragraph 16, the sequence of events and assertions constituting the cause of action for instituting the civil suit. However, the petitioner claimed that the plaint was devoid of any real cause of action and thus deserved to be rejected.

Arguments:

The petitioner, through learned counsel Mr. B. Mohanty, submitted that the suit was fundamentally unsustainable as it failed to disclose any actionable material and was an abuse of the process of the court. He argued that despite the use of the phrase “cause of action” in the plaint, the underlying facts did not constitute a legal basis to sustain the reliefs claimed. He contended that the suit was filed to harass the petitioner and perpetuate litigation, and hence it should be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. In response, the opposite parties, represented by learned counsel Mr. B. Baug, refuted the allegation that the plaint lacked cause of action. They argued that the cause of action was sufficiently and unequivocally disclosed in Paragraph 16 of the plaint and elsewhere, as it referenced specific sale transactions, disputed title, and legal injury, all of which were legitimate grounds for seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs further contended that the determination of whether or not the cause of action existed was a matter to be decided after a full trial, not at the stage of admission of the plaint.

Judgement:

Justice Behera, in his well-reasoned judgment dated April 3, 2025, emphasized that a plaint must be read as a whole, and if upon such reading it discloses a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a). He clarified the vital distinction between the non-disclosure and the non-existence of a cause of action. The former is a legal deficiency that can be determined purely by examining the contents of the plaint; the latter, however, can only be determined upon evaluating the evidence led during the trial. The Court relied on authoritative precedents, notably the Supreme Court’s decision in Jageshwari Devi & Ors. v. Shatrughan Ram and the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court’s ruling in Kishore Kumar v. Ishar Dass, which unanimously held that only non-disclosure (not non-existence) could trigger rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a).

Reaffirming this settled legal principle, the Court noted, “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 of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint.” The High Court meticulously analyzed the contentions raised by both sides and concluded that Paragraph 16 of the plaint indeed demonstrated a coherent narrative, which, whether ultimately successful or not, clearly laid out a triable issue. It reiterated that determining the existence or otherwise of a cause of action requires evaluation of facts and cannot be done merely on a superficial reading of the plaint.

In light of these observations, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. The Court also underscored that procedural safeguards such as Order VII Rule 11 are not intended to short-circuit the litigation process at the cost of substantive justice, especially where the plaint, on its face, discloses a triable issue. Hence, the rejection of the petitioner’s plea for dismissal of the suit at the preliminary stage was found to be proper and by law.