The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to restore the suit, affirming that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a threshold scrutiny. Contentions regarding cause of action, limitation, and res judicata are mixed questions requiring a full trial, not adjudication at the preliminary stage.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from a civil suit (O.S. No.26246 of 2023) filed by the respondents (Archbishop of Bangalore & Others) against the appellant, C.M. Meenakshi, and others. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of absolute ownership over a scheduled property in Bangalore, cancellation of two sale deeds from 2014 and 2020, and permanent injunctions to prevent any alteration or alienation of the property. During the suit’s pendency, defendants 1 to 8 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court allowed this application, rejecting the plaint. The plaintiffs then appealed to the High Court, which set aside the Trial Court’s order and restored the suit. The defendants, aggrieved by this restoration, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the plaint disclosed no cause of action, was barred by limitation and res judicata due to four previous suits on the same matter, and was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments, dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s view that these were triable issues not suitable for summary rejection of the plaint at the threshold.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began with the filing of Original Suit No. 26246 of 2023 by the plaintiffs (respondents) in the City Civil Court. During its pendency, the defendants (appellants) filed I.A. No. 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for plaint rejection, which was allowed by the 73rd Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on 15.03.2024. The plaintiffs then preferred Regular First Appeal No. 683 of 2024 before the High Court of Karnataka. The Single Judge, vide judgment dated 27.06.2024, allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and restored the suit. The defendants, aggrieved by this reversal, filed the present Civil Appeal No. 5015 of 2025 before the Supreme Court, which was ultimately dismissed, upholding the High Court’s decision.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules: Delayed Investigations Violate Fundamental Rights
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that an application for plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC calls for a threshold scrutiny based solely on the averments in the plaint. It held that the appellant’s contentions regarding the absence of cause of action, bar of limitation, res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 CPC involved mixed questions of law and fact that required evidence and a full-fledged trial. The Court emphasized that such substantive defences could not be adjudicated at a preliminary stage to summarily reject the plaint. It affirmed the High Court’s correct approach in restoring the suit for a trial on merits.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint was set aside, and Original Suit No. 26246 of 2023 was restored to the file of the Trial Court for a full trial on merits. The Court ordered the Trial Court to endeavour to expedite the disposal of the suit with the cooperation of both parties. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title:C.M. Meenakshi vs. Archbishop of Bangalore & Others CITATION: 2025 INSC 1363 Appeal Number:Civil Appeal No. 5015 of 2025 Date of Judgement:November 20, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here