Plaints Cannot Be Rejected Merely for Relying on an Unregistered Document: Supreme Court Limits the Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Case Name: Sheo Kumar Singh and Others v. M/s Sharda Educational Society and Others
Date of Judgment: 9 September 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 1011
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Held: The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 merely because the plaintiff relies upon a document alleged to be inadmissible for want of registration. The admissibility of such a document is a matter to be determined during trial after the parties have been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must confine itself to the averments contained in the plaint and the documents filed with it. The defence raised by the defendant, including an objection that a document required compulsory registration, is immaterial at that stage. A party relying upon an unregistered document must also be afforded an opportunity to establish whether the document can be received in evidence for a collateral transaction under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Summary: The appellants-plaintiffs executed a registered lease deed dated 17 October 2011 in favour of the respondents for a period of 33 years. According to the plaintiffs, a supplementary lease deed was subsequently executed on 15 February 2013 to modify certain terms of the registered lease, including the rent payable by the defendants. When the defendants allegedly failed to pay rent in accordance with the revised terms, the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy and instituted a suit seeking eviction and recovery of arrears.
The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. They contended that the plaintiffs’ claim was founded upon an unregistered supplementary lease deed which was inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act. On that basis, they argued that the plaint neither disclosed a cause of action nor was maintainable in law.
The Trial Court rejected the defendants’ application, but the Patna High Court held that the unregistered supplementary lease deed could not be considered and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the application for rejection of the plaint. The Supreme Court found that both courts had misdirected themselves by deciding questions concerning the legal effect and admissibility of the supplementary lease deed at the preliminary stage.
The Court explained that rejection of a plaint is a drastic power because it terminates civil proceedings without a trial. Consequently, the requirements of Order VII Rule 11 must be applied strictly. The plaint must be read as a whole, and the statements contained in it must be taken at face value. The defendant’s objections or proposed defence cannot be considered while deciding whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or appears from its own averments to be barred by law.
The Court further observed that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits an unregistered document affecting immovable property to be received as evidence of a collateral transaction that is not required to be effected through a registered instrument. Whether a party can invoke this proviso can be determined only during trial after evidence has been led. A plaintiff cannot, therefore, be non-suited at the threshold merely because the document on which the claim is based is alleged to be unregistered or inadmissible.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal and set aside the Patna High Court’s order dated 17 December 2024. The defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC was rejected, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit on its merits and in accordance with law. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not decided whether the supplementary lease deed dated 15 February 2013 was admissible in evidence.