Order 7 Rule 11 vs Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, 1908

WITH RESPECT to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, it is to be noted that the court must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to suit, the court may exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. However, in a case where the validity of a particular document itself is under challenge, the same cannot be considered and decided in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Also, it is only the facts pleaded in the plaint which are to be taken into account and if on the basis of those facts any of the infirmities enumerated in Rule 11 of Order VII CPC appears then alone the plaint is liable to be rejected.

 In Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

WITH RESPECT TO under Order II Rule 2 the bar of subsequent suit as envisaged under Order II, Rule 2 comes into operation if the following conditions are fulfiled:

(i)                 Where the cause of action on which the previous suit was filed forms the foundation of the subsequent suit,

(ii)               When the plaintiff could have claimed the relief sought in the subsequent suit, in the earlier suit; and

(iii)             Both the suits are between the same parties.