Judicial time is precious and ought to be employed in the most efficient manner possible. Sham litigations are one such menace that not only waste the time of the courts, but also cause unwarranted prejudice and harm to parties arrayed as defendants (accused party) in such litigations (parties involved in the lawsuit), thereby defeating justice. In order to deal with such a menace, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), under Order VII Rule 11[1] (“O7 R 11”) provides defendants the option to pursue an independent and special remedy, empowering courts to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any grounds contained in this provision.
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali[2] (“Case”), while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents, discussing the intent and purpose of O7 R11, while setting out the principles in relation to the same. Through this judgment, the SC has emphasised that judicial time is precious, and that courts are duty bound to reject vexatious plaints to avoid wastage of judicial time. It has clarified that the power of the courts under O7 R 11 are mandatory in nature and may be exercised at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial. However, it has also clarified that the power conferred under O 7 R 11 is a drastic one and that the requirements enumerated therein should be strictly adhered to. In this case, the SC upheld the orders of the lower courts, rejecting the plaint at the threshold since it found that the institution of the Suit by the Plaintiff was clearly an abuse of the process of the court and was bereft of any merit.
Litigants may pursue the option of seeking rejection of a plaint at the threshold, if the suit fails to disclose a valid cause of action; or is barred by any law; or if the reliefs prayed for therein are defective and un-remediable, in line with the provisions of O7 R 11. However, litigants (the person against whom the case is filed’) ought to be mindful that in exercising such a power, the court cannot go into the merits of the case and has to make its determination only from a scrutiny of the averments made out in the plaint, which is presumed to be true. Additionally, the courts are also required to exercise this power with restraint. Plaints providing a prima facie cause of action are not to be simply rejected at the threshold. The decision of using the option provided under 07 R 11 should therefore be taken with due consideration of the facts and circumstances.