The Supreme Court has held that Document Admissibility Under CPC cannot be decided while considering rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d). The Court said such questions must be examined during trial.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar delivered the ruling. It allowed an appeal filed by a group of landowners/lessors.
The Court set aside an order of the Patna High Court. The High Court had remanded their eviction suit for fresh consideration. It had found that an unregistered supplementary lease deed relied upon by the plaintiffs was inadmissible in evidence.
The Supreme Court framed the issue as follows:
“non-admissibility of a document on which the plaintiff relies for seeking relief in his suit is sought to be made a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Whether such a ground could be urged before commencement of the trial is the issue that arises for consideration in this civil appeal.”
Dispute Over Supplementary Lease Deed
The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before the Supreme Court, had executed a registered lease deed in favour of the respondents-defendants.
The lease concerned a plot of land and had a term of 33 years. It fixed the monthly rent at Rs 92,550, with an annual escalation of 7%.
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants later sought a bank loan to construct a school building on the property. The bank required an equitable mortgage as security.
The parties then executed a supplementary lease deed. It modified certain terms of the original agreement, including the rent based on the constructed area.
The plaintiffs claimed that the supplementary deed only modified an already registered lease. Therefore, according to them, the document did not require separate registration.
Eviction Suit Filed After Alleged Rent Default
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to pay rent according to the revised terms.
They issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) and terminated the tenancy. They subsequently filed a suit seeking eviction and arrears of rent.
In their reply to the notice, the defendants denied executing the supplementary lease deed.
After receiving summons, the defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC.
They argued that Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 barred reliance on the supplementary lease deed because it was unregistered.
Trial Court Rejects Defendants’ Plea
The trial court rejected the defendants’ contention. It held that the supplementary deed formed an integral part of the registered lease deed.
The defendants challenged the decision before the Patna High Court.
In revision, the High Court relied on M/s KB Saha & Sons Pvt Ltd v M/s Development Consultant Ltd and Sunil Kumar Roy v M/s Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd.
The High Court held that the supplementary deed was inadmissible because it was unregistered. It also found that the document could not form part of the registered lease deed.
The High Court therefore set aside the trial court’s order.
The plaintiffs challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before Supreme Court
Senior Advocates Niraj Kishan Kaul and Shadan Farasat appeared for the appellants.
They argued that the High Court should not have examined admissibility at the Order VII Rule 11 stage. At that stage, a court must consider the plaint averments and the documents filed with it. They submitted that the question of admissibility should be decided during trial.
Per contra, Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta appeared for the defendants.
He relied on M/s Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v Amit Chand Mitra and Satish Chand Makhan v Govardhan Das Byas.
He argued that the entire suit rested on an inadmissible and unregistered document. Therefore, the defendants contended that no cause of action existed to sustain the suit.
Order VII Rule 11 Is A Drastic Power: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court relied on PV Guru Raj Reddy v P Neeradha Reddy while examining Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
It reiterated that rejection of a plaint is a drastic power. Such rejection can non-suit a plaintiff without a trial.
At this stage, courts must examine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. They may also determine whether any law bars the suit.
However, the defendant’s stand in the written statement or application remains immaterial at this stage.
The Supreme Court held:
“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 question of admissibility or otherwise of a document is a matter for consideration at the trial and it is only at that stage that such issue could be raised and gone into. The question as regards admissibility of a document would be relevant while adjudicating the suit on merits and not while considering a prayer for rejection of the plaint.”
Section 49 Registration Act Considered
The Supreme Court also examined Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The provision deals with the effect of non-registration of documents that require registration. Such a document ordinarily cannot affect the immovable property covered by it. Nor can it serve as evidence of the transaction.
However, the proviso to Section 49 allows limited use of an unregistered document. It may serve as evidence of a collateral transaction that does not itself require a registered instrument.
The Court held that the applicability of this proviso must be considered at trial.
It observed:
“without granting an opportunity to a party relying on such document to lead evidence to either attempt to prove such unregistered document or to rely upon the proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 so as to give evidence of any collateral transaction that is not required to be effected by a registered document, a party cannot be prevented at the inception itself from even relying upon such document. 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. At that stage, such adjudication would be premature.”
Plaintiffs’ Averments Cannot Be Ignored
The bench noted that the plaintiffs had made a specific assertion in their plaint. They claimed that the supplementary lease deed did not require registration because it only modified an existing registered deed.
The Supreme Court said the defendants could not use non-registration to seek rejection of the plaint at this stage. Doing so would require the Court to disregard the plaintiffs’ averments.
The Court observed:
“permitting the defendants to raise an issue as to non-registration of the supplementary lease deed while seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code would amount to ignoring the plaintiffs’ averments, which state that the said 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.”
Trial Court And High Court Both Erred
The Supreme Court found fault with the approaches adopted by both courts below.
The trial court examined whether the supplementary deed formed part of the registered lease. The High Court went further and recorded a finding on inadmissibility before the parties had led evidence.
The bench held:
“In our view, both the Courts misdirected themselves while adjudicating the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The issue of admissibility or otherwise of a document would be the subject matter of trial. Recording a finding that a particular document was inadmissible in evidence even before parties lead evidence would be contrary to law.”
The ruling therefore clarifies the stage at which Document Admissibility Under CPC should be examined. Such an issue belongs to the trial and cannot form the basis for rejecting the plaint at the threshold.
Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order
The Supreme Court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. It also found that no law barred the suit.
The Court consequently set aside the Patna High Court’s order. It directed the trial court to proceed with the suit and decide it on its merits.
The bench clarified that it had not decided whether the supplementary lease deed dated 15.02.2013 was admissible.
It stated:
“It is clarified that observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. We have not gone into the question of admissibility or otherwise of the supplementary lease deed dated 15.02.2013. The trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove.”
