Plaint: its parts, return and rejection (Order VII)

1. What a plaint must contain: Order VII rule 1

• (a) the name of the court;
• (b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff;
• (c) the same for the defendant, so far as ascertainable;
• (d) where either is a minor or of unsound mind, a statement to that effect;
• (e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose;
• (f) the facts showing that the court has jurisdiction;
• (g) the relief claimed;
• (h) any set-off allowed or portion of claim relinquished, and the amount; and
• (i) a statement of the value of the subject-matter for jurisdiction and court-fees.

2. Parts of a plaint

Arranged as it is drafted:

• Heading. The name of the court (“In the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mysuru”) and the suit number left blank (O.S. No. ___ of 2026).
• Title. The names, description (age, occupation, parentage) and addresses of the plaintiff and defendant, with a note of any disability and the next friend or guardian (rule 1(b) to (d); Order XXXII for minors).
• Body. In numbered paragraphs (Order VI rule 2): the material facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose; facts showing jurisdiction; where the plaintiff sues in a representative character, facts showing his interest and the steps taken to sue (rule 4); facts showing the defendant’s interest and liability (rule 5); and, if the suit is filed after the period of limitation, the ground of exemption (rule 6).
• Relief. Stated specifically, simply or in the alternative (rule 7); where there are several distinct claims on separate grounds, stated separately (rule 8). In a money suit, the precise amount; approximately where mesne profits or accounts are claimed (rule 2). In a commercial suit claiming interest, the rate, dates and daily rate (rule 2A). For immovable property, a description sufficient to identify it, with boundaries or survey numbers (rule 3).
• Valuation for jurisdiction and court-fees (rule 1(i)), under the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 in Karnataka.
• Signature and verification (Order VI rules 14 and 15), with the supporting affidavit (section 26(2), Order VI rule 15(4)).
• List of documents relied on, produced with the plaint (rule 14). A document not produced or listed cannot be received in evidence at the hearing without leave (rule 14(3)).

3. Return of plaint: rules 10, 10A and 10B

Subject to rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted (rule 10(1)). The ground is want of jurisdiction, territorial, pecuniary or as to subject-matter. An appellate or revisional court may, after setting aside the decree, direct the return (Explanation). The Judge endorses on it the dates of presentation and return, the name of the presenting party and a brief statement of reasons (rule 10(2)).

• Rule 10A (1976). Where the defendant has appeared, the court first intimates its decision to return. The plaintiff may then apply, naming the court where he will present the plaint and asking the court to fix a date for appearance there. The notice of that date works as a summons in the new court. If the plaintiff takes this route he loses his right of appeal against the order of return (rule 10A(5)).
• Rule 10B. Where an appellate court confirms an order of return, it may, on the plaintiff’s application, direct him to file the plaint in the proper court, even in another State, and fix a date.
• An order returning a plaint is appealable under Order XLIII rule 1(a), except where the rule 10A procedure was followed.

Effect of return. In EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., 2020 INSC 477, (2020) 12 SCC 667, a three-Judge Bench held that when a plaint is returned and presented in the proper court, the suit starts de novo there; the proceedings in the first court do not continue. The plaintiff may claim exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act.

4. Rejection of plaint: rule 11

The plaint shall be rejected:

• (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
• (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required, fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed;
• (c) where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is on insufficiently stamped paper and the plaintiff, on being required, fails to supply the stamp-paper within the time fixed;
• (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
• (e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
• (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with rule 9 (copies and process fee for service).

The proviso says that the time fixed for correcting valuation or supplying stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the plaintiff was prevented by a cause of an exceptional nature and refusal would cause grave injustice.

Tests from the cases.

• Only the plaint is read. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 INSC 554, (2003) 1 SCC 557, the Court held that for deciding an application under rule 11(a) and (d), only the averments in the plaint (and the documents filed with it) are relevant; the written statement is not. The application may be decided at any stage, even before the written statement is filed. See also Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, 2004 INSC 56, (2004) 3 SCC 137, reading the plaint as a whole, meaningfully and not formally.
• Clever drafting. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, 1977 INSC 204, (1977) 4 SCC 467, Krishna Iyer J. said that if, on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless and discloses no clear right to sue, the court should nip it in the bud; clever drafting creating the illusion of a cause of action should be seen through.
• Limitation on the face of the plaint. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, 2020 INSC 450, (2020) 7 SCC 366, a suit filed years after the sale deed sought to be cancelled, on the plaintiffs’ own pleaded facts, was rejected as barred by limitation and as disclosing no cause of action. The Court restated that rule 11 is a remedy to terminate a sham suit at the threshold.
• No partial rejection. In Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., 2017 INSC 783, (2018) 11 SCC 780, the Court held that the plaint must be rejected as a whole or not at all; if it discloses a cause of action against one defendant or for one relief, it cannot be rejected in part.

Effect. The Judge records the order with reasons (rule 12). Rejection is a deemed decree under section 2(2) and is appealable under section 96. Rejection does not of its own force preclude a fresh plaint on the same cause of action (rule 13), subject to limitation and to res judicata if the ground was decided on the merits.

5. Return and rejection compared

• Ground: return is for want of jurisdiction; rejection is for the defects in rule 11.
• Result: a returned plaint is presented in the proper court; a rejected plaint ends the suit.
• Remedy: return is an appealable order (Order XLIII rule 1(a)); rejection is a deemed decree appealable under section 96.

6. Problem

P sues to cancel a sale deed executed by his father in 2010, pleading that he came to know of it only in 2025. The plaint also says he had been living in the same house as his father throughout, and that the purchaser took possession in 2011. D applies under Order VII rule 11. Advise.

Issue. Whether the plaint shows on its face that the suit is barred by limitation, or discloses no cause of action.

Law. Rule 11(a) and (d); only the plaint is read (Saleem Bhai); a meaningful reading sees through drafting (Arivandandam); a plaint whose own facts show the claim to be long time-barred may be rejected (Dahiben). Article 59 of the Limitation Act: three years to cancel an instrument from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have it cancelled first become known to him.

Application. The plaint alleges knowledge only in 2025. But on its own averments P lived with the vendor and the purchaser took open possession in 2011, which makes the claim of ignorance implausible on the plaint itself. Still, the date of knowledge is ordinarily a question of fact for trial, and the court must take the plaint’s averments as true at this stage.

Conclusion. If the plaint itself contains facts that make knowledge in 2025 impossible, the court may reject it as barred (as in Dahiben). If the plea of later knowledge is specific and not contradicted by the plaint, the court should refuse rejection and frame limitation as an issue. The answer depends on the precise averments; say so, and show both paths.

How this is examined

As essays: “Briefly explain the different parts of a plaint” (January 2025) and “Explain the different parts of a plaint” (August 2024). As a short note: “Rejection of plaint” (January 2026). For the parts question, draft the skeleton of a plaint in the answer itself: heading, title, body, relief, valuation, verification, documents. Examiners give marks for the layout.