Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Supreme Court Says Document Admissibility Must Be Decided At Trial

The Supreme Court has held that the admissibility of a document is a matter to be decided during trial and cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC empowers a court to reject a plaint at the preliminary stage to stop frivolous, incomplete, or legally barred lawsuits without running a full trial

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and must be based solely on the averments made in the plaint. Court said that at this stage, courts cannot examine the defence of the defendant or decide the admissibility of a document relied upon by the plaintiff, as such issues have to be considered during the trial.

Can an unregistered document be rejected at the stage of plaint?

Court said an unregistered document, which is otherwise required to be registered, may still be received as evidence of a collateral transaction that is not required to be effected through a registered instrument under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 explains the legal effects of not registering documents that require mandatory registration under Section 17 or the Transfer of Property Act.

Whether a party can claim the benefit of the proviso to Section 49 is a matter to be adjudicated at the trial, Court said. It held that without giving a party an opportunity to lead evidence, it cannot be completely shut out merely because the document relied upon by it is unregistered.

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Sheo Kumar Singh and others, in which the non-admissibility of a document relied upon by the plaintiffs was sought to be made a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC.

The issue before the Court was whether such a ground could be raised before commencement of the trial.

What was the dispute over the supplementary lease deed?

The appellants were the original plaintiffs, who claimed that a lease deed for letting out a plot of land was entered into with the respondents on October 17, 2011. The lease deed was duly registered.

A supplementary lease deed was subsequently executed between the parties on February 15, 2013. This document was not registered, as the respondents had sought to take a loan for raising constructions.

According to the plaintiffs, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease deed as modified by the supplementary lease deed. A notice was therefore issued terminating the tenancy.

As the defendants failed to vacate the premises, the plaintiffs filed a suit in 2022 seeking their eviction along with arrears of rent calculated on the basis of the supplementary lease deed.

The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The trial court rejected the application.

The defendants then approached the high court in revision. The high court's single judge held that the trial court was not correct in treating the supplementary lease deed as part of the registered lease deed.

The high court accordingly set aside the trial court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court.

Why did the Supreme Court say admissibility must be decided at trial?

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said the admissibility of a document filed along with the plaint cannot be made the basis for seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d) of the CPC.

"We are of the view that the aspect of admissibility or otherwise of a document filed along with the plaint cannot be made the basis for seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and/or (d) of the Code," the Bench said.

Court held that the question of whether a document is admissible or not is a matter for consideration during the trial. It said the issue becomes relevant while adjudicating the suit on merits and not while considering an application for rejection of the plaint.

The Bench emphasised that the averments in the plaint alone are material while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11.

"It must be borne in mind that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code results in non-suiting the plaintiff without any trial," Court said.

It added that, considering the drastic consequences of rejecting a plaint, only the plaint averments and the documents filed along with it can be examined to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law.

Court further held that a party cannot be prevented at the very inception from relying on an unregistered document merely on the ground that it is inadmissible for want of registration.

"In any event, the contention that a document cannot be relied upon as it is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration is a matter that can hardly be considered under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code while seeking rejection of the plaint," the Bench said.

Court said such an adjudication at the threshold would be premature, particularly when the party relying on the unregistered document has not been given an opportunity to lead evidence regarding the collateral transaction.

What is the scope of Order VII Rule 11?

The Supreme Court also reiterated that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the averments in the plaint have to be taken at their face value. The defence taken by the defendants in their application for rejection of the plaint is not material at this stage.

Court said permitting the defendants to raise the issue of non-registration of the supplementary lease deed at this stage would amount to ignoring the plaintiffs' averment that the document did not require registration.

"Material that is beyond the plaint or documents filed along with it would, therefore, be required to be taken into consideration for adjudicating the defendants’ prayer for rejection of the plaint. This is wholly impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code," the Bench said.

After considering the plaint in its entirety and giving it a meaningful reading, the Supreme Court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by any law. It therefore held that the plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d) of the CPC.

Court set aside the high court's December 17, 2024 order and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made by the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Sheo Kumar Singh And Others Vs M/s Sharda Educational Society And Others 

Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar 

Date of Judgment: September 09, 2026