Supreme Court of India· 22 August 2026

Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on the written statement’s allegations?

Neelam Sharma and Others v. Amita Passan and Others

2026 INSC 913 · SLP (C) No.31540 of 2025
Coram: N.V. Anjaria; S.V.N. Bhatti

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil …📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. While considering the prayer in an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the court has to consider the averments in the plaint only. The plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations made in the written statement of the defendant, and where the plaint itself pleads joint possession no aspect exists to reject it at the threshold.

Headnote

Court Fees Act, 1870 — s.7(iv)(c) — Second Schedule Article 17(iii) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Ad-valorem court fee — Non-executant in joint possession — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Plaint averments alone — Held: On an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC the court has to consider the averments in the plaint only. A plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations made in the written statement of the defendant. (¶5) Court Fees Act, 1870 — s.7(iv)(c) — Second Schedule Article 17(iii) — Non-executant seeking declaration — Held further: A non-executant who is in possession and sues for a declaration that a deed is null or void pays merely the fixed court fee under Article 17(iii). Ad-valorem court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) is attracted only where he is not in possession and also seeks possession. (¶5) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Court Fees Act, 1870 — Court fee deferred to evidence — Held further: Where the plaint asserts joint possession, the plaint is not liable to be rejected at the threshold on the court-fee ground. Whether ad valorem or fixed court fee is payable must be decided upon the evidence led in the suit. Appeal allowed. (¶6)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 5It is well-settled principle that while considering the prayer in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the court has to consider the averments in the plaint only. Given this trite position of law, when in the instant case, the averments in the plaint are looked at in their entirety, more particularly, in paragraph 4 of the plaint quoted hereinabove, there is no gainsaying that it is stated by plaintiffs that after purchase of the suit property, along with defendants they resided therein, thereby pleading unequivocally that they were in joint possession. The whole suit and the prayers were based on the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit property. Prima facie, therefore, no aspect existed which would have persuaded the court to reject the plaint at the threshold by accepting the case of defendant No.2 in his application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, that the ad-valorem court fee was payable.

Acts & Sections

Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.7(iv)(c) Court Fees Act, 1870Second Schedule Article 17(iii) Court Fees Act, 1870

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Neelam Sharma and Others v. Amita Passan and Others — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Must a co-owner in joint possession pay ad-valorem court fee to declare a sale deed void?How does suing to cancel a deed differ from suing to declare it void?Can the court fee question be deferred to the evidence in the suit?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections