For deciding an application U/O 7 Rule 11 of CPC, Court must read the plaint exhaustively and not in a cursory manner-DHC

. It is settled law that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to read the plaint in a exhaustive and meaningful manner and plaint has not to be read only in a formal and cursory manner. If the Court finds that there was gross misuse of process of law and the judicial process was being misused, the Court is duty bound to nip evil in the bud. Drafting craft of the plaint should not be allowed to create confusion and should not be allowed to play fraud with the Court. A clever and crafty drafting should not be allowed to encourage bogus litigation and bogus litigation must be stopped at the initial stage itself.

Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRS. & Ors- 09/07/2020

The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.

Whether a Court is competent to reject the Plaint when it failed to state material facts

Order VI Rule 2 (1) of the Code states the basic and cardinal rule of pleadings and declares that the pleading has to state material facts and not the evidence. It mandates that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

Church Of North India vs Rt. Reverend Ashoke Biswas [CHC]

Whether the Bishop's service is a 'personal service' at all and as to whether the ingredient of volition is at all a relevant factor after the 2018 Amendment, demands that the plaint should not be rejected at the outset, thereby precluding the plaintiff/opposite party from canvassing the dispute raised. Several allegations made in the plaint, on a plain and meaningful reading, disclose sufficient cause of action to institute the action. There is no bar of law as well, ex facie evident from the plaint, to justify the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In absence of right to sue, the court must shoot down bogus litigation at the first hearing-SC

T. ARIVANDANDAM Vs. T.V. SATYAPAL AND ANOTHER - Rejection of Plaint - Under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it is the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is an answer to irresponsible lawsuits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Ch. XI) and must be triggered against them - SC [14-10-1977]