Courts Supreme Court
Supreme Court: document admissibility cannot ground plaint rejection
The case concerns whether the non-admissibility of an unregistered supplementary lease deed can be a ground for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the trial has commenced.
Who it concerns: Appellants: Sheo Kumar Singh and others (original plaintiffs); Respondents: M/s Sharda Educational Society and others (original defendants); Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.
What the court decided
- The Court held that the admissibility or non-admissibility of a document filed with the plaint cannot be the basis for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and/or (d) of the Code.
- The Court determined that the question of a document's admissibility is a matter for consideration at the trial stage, not during the preliminary stage of rejecting the plaint.
- The Court stated that only the averments in the plaint are material when considering an application under Order VII Rule 11.
Also in the document
- The Court clarified that the High Court erred in examining the issue of admissibility of the unregistered supplementary lease deed at the stage of considering the rejection of the plaint.
- The Court noted that the trial Court had initially rejected the application for rejection of the plaint, which was later set aside by the High Court, leading to this appeal.
How this was written
An AI model running on our own computer read the government document and wrote this summary. No person has checked it.
✓ Figures checked. Every number in this summary was found in the document by an automated check.
That check compares numbers only. It cannot confirm that the wording says what the document says — so the original document is always the authority.
The original document
Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments
Court order · 19 Sep 2026
Read it here
Discussion
No one has discussed this document yet.