G. PAZHANIVEL v. S. THILAGAVATHY

2026 INSC 1197 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.13154 OF 2026

G. PAZHANIVEL APPELLANT

VERSUS

S. THILAGAVATHY RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J

1. This appeal questions the correctness of the order passed by

the trial Court and upheld by the High Court rejecting the plaint

in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 19081 prior to registration of the civil suit.

2. The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit

property, more particularly described in the schedule annexed to

the plaint. The same is a piece of land claimed to be owned by the

plaintiff. It is alleged that pursuant to a registered Settlement Deed

dated 26.02.2021, the suit property was settled in favour of the Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by ABHINAV KUMAR Date: 2026.11.05 14:35:21 IST Reason:

1 For short, ‘the Code’

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 1 of 19

plaintiff by his son. The plaintiff being in need of money borrowed

an amount of ₹25,00,000/- from the husband of the respondent-

defendant at interest rate of 24% per month. It is the case of the

plaintiff that on the insistence of the defendant’s husband, a sale

deed of the suit property was got registered on 15.03.2021 in the

name of the defendant. Despite the aforesaid, the possession of the

suit property continued with the plaintiff. It is the further case of

the plaintiff that the sale deed was executed by way of security for

the amount borrowed from the defendant’s husband.

Subsequently, the plaintiff was in a position to repay the amount

borrowed. He, therefore, offered to repay the loan amount of

₹25,00,000/- with interest. However, the defendant avoided to

execute a sale deed in the plaintiff’s favour. The defendant also

attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property on

25.05.2025. On this cause of action, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid

suit seeking a decree for declaration of his title to the suit property

and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from

disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The prayers made in

the suit read as under:

“VI. The plaintiff therefore prays that a decree may be passed in his favour

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 2 of 19

i) Declaring plaintiff’s title to the suit property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant and his men, agents and servants by a decree of permanent injunction not to disturb plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, ii) Redeeming the mortgage deed, styled as sale deed dated 15.03.2021 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Kadampuliyur as document No: 927/2021 in book No: I iii) Directing the defendant to execute a sale deed, reconveying the suit property to plaintiff by a decree of mandatory injunction, iv) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the cost of this suit and v) Granting all other just and necessary reliefs.”

3. It appears that on presentation of the suit, the same came up

before the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. Prior to the

suit being registered, the learned Principal District Judge heard

the plaintiff and perused the documents filed along with the plaint.

On the ground that the sale deed dated 15.03.2021 did not contain

any provision for re-sale of the suit property and as no agreement

to that effect was filed by the plaintiff, it was held that the

defendant had the full right of enjoyment of the suit property by

virtue of the said sale deed. For these reasons, the plaint was

rejected and refund of court fees was directed. This order was

passed in Unnumbered O.S. being 19R Nos.8886/2025, dt.

20.06.2025, and 8973/2025, dt. 23.06.2025.

4. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint,

preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 3 of 19

Judicature at Madras2. The Division Bench was of the view that

rejection of the plaint by the trial Court was proper for the reason

that neither from the settlement deed executed by the plaintiff’s

son nor from the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of

the defendant could an inference be drawn that the sale deed

executed by the plaintiff was in the nature of a mortgage deed or a

deed of conditional sale with right to reconvey the property. It held

that for lack of cause of action, the plaint was rightly rejected. It

further noted that since the suit was not numbered and the

plaintiff was held entitled to refund of the court fees, similar

concession was extended to the plaintiff in the appeal. Being

aggrieved, the plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid judgment in

this appeal.

5. Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff

submitted that the High Court committed an error in rejecting the

plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code

prior to registration of the suit. At the stage of registration of the

suit, what was only required to be examined was whether the

plaint complied with the requirements of Order VII of the Code. At

2 For short, ‘the High Court’

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 4 of 19

that stage, it was not permissible to examine the plaint in detail

and thereafter proceed to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII

Rule 11 of the Code. An order rejecting a plaint had serious

consequences and, therefore, such power ought to be exercised

after completion of the ministerial act of registration of the plaint.

Inviting attention to the consistent view taken by the High Court

in this regard as reflected in its decisions in Selvaraj Vs.

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited3 and The

Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the District

Collector Namakkal and others Vs. Ponnusamy4, it was

submitted that the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions was

not being followed. While it was true that the power under Rule 11

of Order VII could be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, it

could not have been exercised even prior to registration of the suit.

Referring to the decision in Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar

Gupta5, it was urged that dismissal of the suit without a trial was

unwarranted.

3 CRP(MD) No.915 of 2020 4 2026:MHC:245 5 2010 INSC 651

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 5 of 19

Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was urged that on a

complete reading of the plaint, it was clear that it did disclose a

cause of action for being tried. Merely by referring to the settlement

deed and the sale deed executed by the plaintiff, the plaint could

not have been rejected. Since it was the case of the plaintiff, as

pleaded, that the sale deed was executed only by way of security

for the amount borrowed from the defendant’s husband and the

plaintiff continued in possession, rejection of the plaint at the

threshold was not warranted. He, therefore, submitted that the

impugned orders be set aside and the suit be restored for being

tried in accordance with law.

6. On the other hand, Ms. G. Indira, learned counsel appearing

for the defendant supported the rejection of the plaint by the trial

Court. She submitted that the registered sale deed dated

15.03.2021 clearly indicated that the plaintiff had outrightly sold

the suit property to the defendant. No inference, whatsoever, could

be drawn that the sale deed was executed by way of security. In

absence of any document indicating the defendant’s intention to

reconvey the property, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the

plaint. Exercise of such power by the trial Court even prior to

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 6 of 19

registration of the plaint could not be questioned in such

circumstances. There being no bar to the exercise of power under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code at any stage, the same was rightly

exercised by the trial Court prior to registration of the plaint. No

purpose would have been served by registering the plaint and

thereafter rejecting it for want of cause of action. It was, thus,

submitted that no interference was called for with the order passed

by the trial Court rejecting the plaint that was upheld by the High

Court.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have

also perused the documents on record. Having considered the

contentions as urged, we are of the view that the trial Court erred

in rejecting the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11

of the Code after entering into the merits of the case and without

indicating how the plaint was liable to be rejected in a summary

manner. The High Court too erred in affirming the order of the trial

Court. The suit, in our opinion warranted an adjudication on

merits.

8. Under the Code, the institution of a suit with the presentation

of a plaint and admission of that plaint are two stages that have

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 7 of 19

been separately placed. Order IV refers to institution of suits.

Under Rule 1(1) of Order IV, a suit is required to be instituted by

presenting a plaint in duplicate to the Court or such officer as it

appoints in this behalf. Rule 1(2) of Order IV requires every plaint

to comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII insofar as

they are applicable. Sub-rule 1(3) of Order IV lays down that a

plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies

with the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Order IV. It is also

material to note that as per Rule 2 of Order IV, the particulars of

every suit are required to be entered in a book to be kept for that

purpose called the Register of Civil Suits. The entries made therein

are required to be numbered in every year according to the order

in which the plaints are admitted. This provision would indicate

that the Register of Suits consists of various entries made serially

in the sequence in which the plaints are admitted.

9. Order V Rule 1(1) prescribes for issuance of summons to a

defendant to appear and answer the claim made in a suit that has

been duly instituted. Thereafter, Order VII Rule 9 of the Code

prescribes the procedure on a plaint being admitted. It lays down

that where the Court orders the summons to be served on the

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 8 of 19

defendants in the manner provided in Rule 9 of Order V, the

plaintiff is required to present as many copies of the plaint as there

are defendants, within seven days from the date of such order

along with requisite fee for service of summons on the defendants.

10. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the power under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code could not have been exercised by the

trial Court at the pre-registration stage of the suit. According to

the plaintiff, only after registration of the plaint, the said aspect

could be gone into by the trial Court. This contention made on

behalf of the plaintiff cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal

position in this regard. In T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal

and another6, this Court held that at the first hearing of a suit,

the trial Court could exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code, if necessary, by examining a party under Order X of the

Code. It was observed as under:

“The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the

6 1977 INSC 204

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 9 of 19

first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.”

10.1 In Saleem Bhai and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others7, this Court held in clear terms that the trial Court could

exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code even prior to

the plaint being registered or after issuance of summons to the

defendants at any time before conclusion of the trial. It was

observed as under:

“A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit-before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.” [emphasis supplied by us]

10.2 Similarly, in Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju Vs.

Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy & Others8, this position

was reiterated by observing as under:

“11. Ordinarily, an application for rejection of election petition in limine, purportedly under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action, ought to proceed at the threshold. For, it has to be

7 2002 INSC 554 8 2018 INSC 249

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 10 of 19

considered only on the basis of institutional defects in the election petition in reference to the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11. Indeed, non-disclosure of cause of action is covered by clause (a) therein. Concededly, Order VII of the CPC generally deals with the institution of a plaint. It delineates the requirements regarding the particulars to be contained in the plaint, relief to be specifically stated, for relief to be founded on separate grounds, procedure on admitting plaint, and includes return of plaint. The rejection of plaint follows the procedure on admitting plaint or even before admitting the same, if the court on presentation of the plaint is of the view that the same does not fulfill the statutory and institutional requirements referred to in clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11. The power bestowed in the court in terms of Rule 11 may also be exercised by the court on a formal application moved by the defendant after being served with the summons to appear before the Court.” [emphasis supplied by us]

10.3 Yet again, in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust &

Educational Charitable Society Vs. M/s Ponniamman

Educational Trust9, the view that a plaint could be rejected even

before issuance of summons to the defendants was reiterated. It

was observed as under:

“To reject the plaint even before registration of the plaint on one or more grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the other defendants need not necessarily be heard at all as it does not affect their rights. As a matter of fact, this Court in Saleem Bhai (supra) held that the plaint can be rejected even before the issuance of summons. This Court has taken a view that the trial Court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial. We respectfully agree with the said view and reiterate the same.”

9 2012 INSC 264

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 11 of 19

11. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the power to

reject a plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code

can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings commencing from

presentation of a plaint followed by its registration and any stage

thereafter. In a given case, such power may be exercised even prior

to registration of the plaint. Even otherwise, we may observe that

formal registration of a plaint by itself would not clothe the plaint

with a shield of invincibility as its maintainability can always be

questioned at any stage in exercise of power under Order VII Rule

11 of the Code. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the power

to reject a plaint could be exercised only after registration of the

suit cannot be accepted.

12. Turning now to the impugned order passed by the trial Court

rejecting the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of

the Code, it may be noted that the trial Court has not indicated

any specific clause of Rule 11 under which the plaint was being

rejected. The order of the trial Court does not indicate as to

whether the plaint was rejected on the ground that it did not

disclose a cause of action or that the suit appeared from a

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 12 of 19

statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The short order

passed by the trial Court reads thus:

“2. Heard plaintiff’s side. Perused the case records. The plaintiff pleaded that he executed a sale deed, but on condition to reconvey on payment of the sale consideration amount with interest which is practice in their locality. The sale deed does not contain the resale provision. No agreement is filed by the plaintiff in mark of agreeing for resale. Further, the terms of the sale deed dated 15.03.2021 reveals that the defendant is given full right of enjoyment and alienation to his choice. Hence, considering all these aspects, the plaint is rejected. Refund the Court Fees as per law.”

13. To consider whether the plaint warranted rejection in a

summary manner, we may consider the averments made in the

plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that pursuant to a settlement

deed dated 26.02.2021, the suit property was settled in favour of

the plaintiff by his son. As the plaintiff was in need of financial

help, he had borrowed an amount of ₹25,00,000/- from the

defendant’s husband. It is pleaded that the said amount was

borrowed as per usage and custom with interest at the rate of 24%

per month. A sale deed was executed by way of security for the

amount borrowed and only to give the transaction a colour of

reality. It was further specifically pleaded that even after execution

of the sale deed by the plaintiff, he continued in possession of the

suit property. Despite the plaintiff’s willingness to repay the loan

amount with accrued interest, the defendant had been avoiding to

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 13 of 19

execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and was further

attempting to take possession of the suit property. On this cause

of action, the suit seeking declaration of the plaintiff’s title,

redemption of mortgage and permanent injunction so as to protect

the plaintiff’s possession was filed. A further mandatory injunction

was sought seeking a direction to the defendant to execute a sale

deed in favour of the plaintiff by reconveying the property to him.

The plaintiff also indicated his readiness to deposit the loan

amount of ₹25,00,000/- with accrued interest.

14. On a meaningful reading of the entire plaint, it is evident that

the same discloses a cause of action. The suit does not appear from

any statement made in the plaint that it is barred by law. Besides

the prayer for redemption of the mortgage deed styled as sale deed

dated 15.03.2021, the plaintiff had also sought the relief of

permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendant, her agents

and servants from disturbing his peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit property. Another prayer made was to direct

the defendant to execute a sale deed reconveying the suit property

to the plaintiff. According to the trial Court, since the sale deed

executed by the plaintiff did not contain a provision for re-sale nor

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 14 of 19

was any agreement filed by the plaintiff indicating the defendant’s

agreement for such re-sale, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

Firstly, the trial Court failed to notice the various prayers

made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It merely proceeded on the basis

that the suit as filed was simplicitor for redemption of the mortgage

deed styled as a sale deed. Secondly, it was not permissible for the

trial Court to ignore material averments made in the plaint nor

could it refuse to read the plaint as a whole. In the wake of specific

pleadings made in the plaint disclosing a cause of action for filing

the suit and seeking various reliefs, the plaint was not liable to be

rejected in a summary manner by the trial Court.

15. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the High Court

besides reiterating what was observed by the trial Court further

held that for lack of cause of action, the plaint was rightly rejected

by the trial Court. As observed earlier, the trial Court did not

indicate in its order the reason for rejection of the plaint. Before

the High Court, a specific ground was raised by the plaintiff that

without permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence and substantiate

his pleadings, the plaint could not have been rejected. The said

ground of challenge has not been considered by the High Court.

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 15 of 19

16. We, therefore, find that without considering the plaint as a

whole and without its meaningful reading, the Courts have

rejected the plaint. It would be a different matter that according to

the trial Court, the plaintiff was not likely to finally succeed in the

suit and that the suit would be dismissed after trial. That

assumption cannot be made the basis for rejection of a plaint,

especially when some cause of action is disclosed therein.

Likelihood of a suit being dismissed after trial does not furnish a

ground for the Court to reject the plaint prior to the trial. If a plaint

discloses a cause of action, which it does in the present case, and

the suit does not appear to be barred by any law in view of

statements made in the plaint, it has to go for trial. We may in this

regard refer to the decision of this Court in Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay

Kumar and others10 wherein it was held that there was an

inherent right in every person to bring a suit of civil nature, unless

barred by statute. The rejection of the plaint in such manner is,

therefore, found unsustainable. In our view, no ground for

rejection of the plaint was made out as required by the provisions

of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

10 1974 INSC 87

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 16 of 19

17. Having found that in a given case, a plaint could be rejected

even prior to its registration, it would be in the interest of

administration of justice that such rejection of a plaint at a stage

prior to its registration also ought to be duly recorded. Rejection of

a plaint has the character of a ‘decree’ as defined by Section 2(2)

of the Code and, therefore, permitting rejection of a plaint in an

unregistered or unnumbered proceeding to go unnoticed without

any record has its own disadvantages. The record of an

unregistered or unnumbered plaint would be necessary in case an

order rejecting a plaint is questioned in appeal and the record of

the trial Court is summoned. In other words, a record of plaints

that are rejected prior to their registration also ought to be

maintained. This would facilitate the availability of some record of

proceedings initiated by a plaintiff at an earlier point of time.

Similarly, a defendant would also have information of the rejection

of a plaint filed earlier in any subsequent proceeding filed by that

plaintiff based on the same cause of action, which is permissible

under Order VII Rule 13 of the Code.

18. Our attention was invited to the decision of a learned Single

Judge of the High Court in Selvaraj (supra). While holding that a

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 17 of 19

plaint could be rejected prior to it being numbered and entered in

the Register of Suits, the Court observed that a roving enquiry into

the merits of the matter was not called for. The learned Senior

Advocate for the plaintiff also referred to the decision in The

Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the District

Collector Namakkal and others (supra) wherein the suitability

and requirement of numbering a plaint even when it is rejected

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on demurrer has been

emphasised. The concerns expressed therein are material thus

highlighting the importance of there being some record of

proceedings even when a plaint is rejected at a stage prior to its

registration.

19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the learned

Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in Unnumbered O.S. (19R

Nos.8886/2025, dt. 20.06.2025, and 8973/2025, dt. 23.06.2025)

dated 11.07.2025 as well as the judgment dated 16.10.2025

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in A.S. No.970 of

2025 are set aside. The plaint is restored for being duly registered.

The suit thereafter shall be decided in accordance with law. It is

clarified that any observations made hereinabove shall not be

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 18 of 19

treated as an expression on the merits of the case and the suit

shall be decided uninfluenced by the same.

20. We deem it necessary to direct that whenever the trial Court

rejects a plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code prior to registration of the plaint, the fact that such plaint

stands rejected shall be duly recorded in a register maintained for

such purpose under Order IV Rule 2 of the Code. In case such

provision has not been made in the concerned Civil Manual or the

applicable Rules, the High Courts may in exercise of its power

conferred by Section 122 of the Code take appropriate steps in that

regard.

21. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the

High Courts and the Director of the State Judicial Academies for

necessary circulation and follow up steps.

22. The Civil Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications are disposed of.

…...………………………..J. [ UJJAL BHUYAN ]

.…..………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 5, 2026.

Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026 Page 19 of 19