Order 7 Rule 11:Grounds of Rejection of Plaint explained with sample draft

Table of Contents

Background

The plaint is filed for the institution of the suit in the Civil/Commercial Courts. A court dealing with civil matters will be governed by the provisions of the Code. Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure is envisaged with the provisions of the rejection of the plaint by the Court. The article shall discuss the provisions, the grounds of rejection, the limitation period after rejection within which the plaint needs to be re-filed and also other informative things. This rule is merely a procedural rule which ensures nothing but the proper application of the Court Fees Act 1870.

Rejection of Plaint

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure elaborates on the rejection of plaints in certain circumstances. It has mentioned certain grounds on the basis of which the plaints are rejected by the courts. One of them is not mentioning the cause of action that the plaintiff seeks against the respondent.

It is necessary to decide the application of rejection of the plaint under Order VII. The defendant cannot be asked to file a written statement without deciding on such an application if there is any. Furthermore, this rule can be applied at any stage of the proceedings. In a case before the Calcutta High Court, Selina Sheehan v. Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib, the plaint was rejected even after it was numbered and instituted as a suit.

It is the duty of the Court to examine the plaint thoroughly and decide whether the plaint should be admitted or sent back for making amends to it. However, the plaint is bound to be rejected by the Court in the following circumstances –

If the plaint doesn’t mention a cause of action (Order VII Rule 11(a))

Order 7 rule 11 Cause of Action

Cause of Action has been mentioned under a lot of provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a set of allegations or facts which make up for the ground of filing a civil suit in the Court. One instance of the mention of Cause of Action is under Order II Rule 2 of the Code. Therein, it has been stated that for the purpose of instituting a suit, the cause of action needs to be explicitly mentioned in the plaint. If it has not been mentioned, then the plaint will be rejected by the Court.

It is the sole reason why a civil suit exists in the first place. It specifies the legal injury which the person who is instituting a suit has suffered. It also has the remedy or relief which the plaintiff is going to ask the Court to grant. The person instituting such suit also needs to prove certain elements i.e. 1. That there existed a duty, 2. The occurrence of a breach of that duty, 3. The cause of such a breach and 4. The damages incurred by the plaintiff. Thus, if the plaint does not allege the facts which are required for furthering the claim of the plaintiff, the plaint shall be dismissed by the Court citing the grounds for such dismissal.

Order II Rule 2 of the Code

The term Cause of Action has been mentioned in Order II Rule 2 wherein it has been stated that no person shall be troubled more than once for the same cause of action. The principle behind this rule is that the plaintiff has to include all the claims at once in the suit which he is instituting. The test for the Courts is that the cases falling under this particular provision of the Code must answer the question that the claim in the new suit is found upon a different cause of action.

However, the plaintiff is at full liberty to omit any part of the claim.

Illustration – Suresh rents a house from Ramesh at a rent of INR 120000 per year. Rent for the whole of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is due and is yet to be paid. Ramesh sues Suresh in 2019 for claiming the amount which was due. The suit was in respect of the rent due in 2015. Thus, after this Ramesh cannot sue Suresh afterwards for the rent due for the remaining years.

The causes of action need to be different so that the bar under Order II Rule 2 is not applicable. In Alka Gupta v. Narendar Kumar Gupta, the parties in the case were partners in a partnership firm. The partnership firm used to run an institute. One of the partners sold her undivided share to the other partner where the institute was located. In order to claim the amount of sale, a suit was filed in 2004.

After a decree was passed in the first suit, another suit was filed for production of accounts of the firm from 2000 to 2004 on certain grounds. The partnership had already dissolved in 2004. The trial and the High Court were of the opinion that such suit is hit by the Order but the Supreme Court was of a different opinion.

The Supreme Court said that “The cause of action in the first suit was not paying the price under the agreement of sale dated 29th June 2004 whereas, in the second suit, the cause of action was non-settlement of accounts of the dissolved partnership. Order II Rule 2 finds applicability only when both the suits are based on the same cause of action.”

Joinder of Causes of Action

Several causes of action can be unified into one by the plaintiff against the defendant or several defendants jointly. (Order II Rule 2 of the Code)

Any plaintiffs who are interested in the same legal remedy and have the same cause of action may unite them into one in the same suit. However, if such joinder of causes of action embarrasses or delays the trial of the court, it may order separate trials. (Order II Rule 6 of the Code)

Order II Rule 4 of the Code lays down the situations in which the causes of action will not be joined unless the Court has allowed doing so. Following are the exceptions to the same –

Claims for mesne profit or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof;
Claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held;
Claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action.

This rule provides for joinder of claims in suits.

A reference to Section 20 of the Code is necessary while discussing case laws in relation to cause of action.

Section 20 states that suits have to be instituted at the place where the cause of action arises, either in part or wholly. Even though the cause of action is a set of facts alleged but it does not contain all the evidence required for proving the allegations.

Notices under Section 80 of the Code are not included in Cause of Action. The production of notice to the Government or public officer is one of the preliminary steps for filing a suit against them.

Misjoinder of Cause of Action

When multiple causes of action are being unified together in the suit which cannot be joined together, there can be no such joinder. All objections concerning the misjoinder of causes of action need to be addressed as early as possible. It is presumed that if an objection is not raised against the misjoinder, this right is deemed to be waived off.

Case Laws

In Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Shrikant Gupta, there was a partnership firm which had its registered office in Bombay and the factory was in Mandsaur. Out of the three partners, two had their residences in Mandsaur whereas one was living in Chandigarh. In Bhilai, an agreement was entered into between the three of them for dissolution of the firm. Rendering of accounts of the firm was also requested because of the alleged misappropriation of the funds of the firm.

A suit was filed by the plaintiff in Chandigarh regarding the same. The Supreme Court in the instant case had held that the Courts at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction in the matter. The cause of action would have arisen at Chandigarh either wholly or partly to confer jurisdiction of the case in the matter. Courts at Bhilai had the jurisdiction instead because of the agreement.

In HCL Info Systems Limited v. Anil Kumar, HCL had its registered office at New Delhi and used to run business in Cochin through its branch. It ran the business the same way it used to by way of branches in Madras and Bombay. Thus, it was held that the courts at Cochin would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.

In Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd., an agreement was entered into between the parties that if any dispute arises, the courts at Delhi will have exclusive jurisdiction. However, the agreement was not signed at Delhi but at some other place, thus, it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that as per Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party can file a suit at whichever place the cause of action arose either partly or wholly.

Grounds of rejection of the plaint

A plaint can be rejected by the Court if it does not mention a cause of action which is to be taken by the plaintiff against the respondent. It is perceived as an abuse of the process of the Court. Cause of Action has been mentioned at various places in the Code of Civil Procedure. Without a cause of action, a civil suit cannot arise. The cause of action is necessary because it discloses the facts that made the plaintiff take such action. When the plaint is being rejected, the court needs to just look at the plaint and nothing else.

Moreover, a part of the plaint cannot be rejected, the plaint if rejected, has to be rejected as a whole. However, there can be partial striking out of pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code, but not partial rejection of the plaint.

In Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath Alias K.N. Singh & Ors., an appeal was filed under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent i.e. Kedar Nath won the Lok Sabha Elections from Hapur. The appellant was able to secure only 617 votes in the election. The election petition was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure because it did not disclose any cause of action.

In K. Thakshinamoorthy v. State Bank of India, a revision petition was filed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The Additional Judge had rejected the plaint on the grounds that there was no cause of action mentioned. The defendants sought to get the plaint rejected in that case. Ultimately, the plaint was rejected on the grounds of absence of a cause of action.

In S.M.P. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. World Tanker Carrier Corporation, the plaint was rejected on the same grounds that there was no cause of action mentioned in the plaint submitted by the plaintiff.

The relief claimed in the plaint is undervalued (Order VII Rule 11(b))

As per Order VII Rule 11(b), if the amount of compensation that is being demanded by the plaintiff is lesser than the requisite, the plaint can be rejected. Such a claim needs to be corrected within the time which is prescribed by the Court. Such rejection amounts to dismissing of the suit. A fresh plaint may be presented under Order 7 Rule 13 of the Code.

For the purpose of rejecting a plaint on this ground, the evaluation involved should be objective in nature. For example – In Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, the evaluation was of the rent of the leasehold. This is an objective evaluation.

In Commercial Aviation & Travel Company & Ors. v. Vimal Pannalal, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while evaluating the value of the relief claim in the plaint, the Court needs to resort to the materials, evidence present. The respondent-plaintiff in paragraph 33 of the plaint had claimed relief estimating from 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs. This was also disputed because there was not an accurate estimate. However, the Court held that it was not unreasonable on the part of the respondent-plaintiff to do so. The appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed and reasons were cited for the dismissal.

Relief under CPC

Relief also has to be specifically stated in the plaint. Rule 7 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a plaint needs to contain the relief that the plaintiff claims. It can be anything i.e. damages, an injunction, declaration, appointment of a receiver, etc. If a plaintiff except when allowed by the Court omits any relief to which he is entitled to sue, he will not be granted such relief afterwards. Sometimes, the Court grants relief on a different ground than stated in the plaint. The relief claimed by the plaintiff or the defendant may be a general relief or an alternative relief.

Relief has been stated in the plaint clearly but the paper on which the plaint is written is not properly stamped (Order VII Rule 11(c))

As per Order VII Rule 11(c), a plaint is rejected by the Court if it has been written on a paper which has not been duly stamped and authorized. If the person is not able to make up for the deficiency, he can apply as a pauper as to continue the suit. Order under this rule for rejecting a plaint must only be given after the plaintiff has been given reasonable time to amend the situation.

In a case before the Calcutta High Court, Midnapur Zamindary Co. v. Secretary of State, the Court had required the plaintiff to supply the amended plaint with the duly stamped paper which he failed to do so. It was held by the Court that further, the plaintiff will not be allowed to amend the plaint and the plaintiff was directed to pay an extra amount of Court fees. The plaint was also rejected.

If the suit is barred by any Statute (Order VII Rule 11(d))

As per Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, a plaint shall be rejected if the suit is barred by Limitation.

If a suit is barred by the Law of Limitation, the plaint of such a suit can be amended at the hearing. It is the duty of the Court to see whether there is non-disclosure of the cause of action or the plaint is barred under any law.

Wherever it can be shown by the plaintiff that the suit was filed within the time period of limitation, the provisions of this order will not be attracted. The computation of the period of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.

For example – If a suit is brought against the Government without giving the requisite notice to the same under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint for such a suit shall be rejected. Section 80 of the Code requires a notice which needs to be served to the Government or the public officer before instituting of the suit.

In Bachchu v. Secy of State, a suit was brought against the Secretary. This suit was brought without giving prior notice as required by Section 80 of the Code. The plaint was rejected.

Landmark Cases

In Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, the cause of action had arisen when the plaintiff challenged the gift deed after a period of approximately twenty-two years from the date of the execution of the same. The plaintiff in the case has challenged the gift deed with the allegations that the gift deed is a showy one hence not binding.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing both sides, in view of the facts of the case, held that this suit is unequivocally prohibited by The Law of Limitation. And, the plaint needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

Provisions for Rejection of plaint

Order VII Rule 11(e) requires that a duplicate copy of the plaint along with the original one should be filed for instituting a suit. The plaint is rejected if the plaintiff fails to do.

Furthermore, Order VII Rule 11(f) states that if a plaintiff does not comply with Order VII Rule 9 of the Code, the plaint can be rejected.

Rule 9 Order VII of the Code specifies the procedure after the admission of the plaint. The plaintiff needs to attach a list of documents, a number of copies as required by the Court.

Other landmark cases on the rejection of the plaint

It was held in Kalepu Pala Subrahmanyam v. Tiguti Venkata, a revision petition was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court stating that a plaint cannot be rejected in parts. The plaint needs to be rejected as a whole.
It was held in Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee, by the Calcutta High Court that an order which is passed for rejecting a plaint is a decree. And an appeal lies against the decree.
It was held in K. ROJA v. U.S. RAYU, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage. The Court needs to dispose off such an application before the trial starts.
In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Astt. Charity Commr., a suit which had been filed at an earlier stage of recording evidence, another application was filed for delaying the proceedings of the suit, such application is deemed to be rejected.
Under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the pleadings of the plaintiff are looked into. Neither the written statement nor the averments can be considered for an inquiry under the said order. (Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jarya)

Procedure on rejecting the plaint

Under Order VII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure has been specified after the rejection of a plaint. According to the provisions, the Judge can make an order also recording the reasons for such order.

The language provided in the Code is mandatory and if the court does not make an order regarding the same, the plaint will still be deemed to be on record of the Court. (Parukutty Amma v. Ramaunni)

Extending time

It is upon the Court’s discretion to extend the time for applications under Order VII Rule 11 clauses (b) to(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This has been done to ensure that proper Court fees have been paid for filing the suit. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure has given powers to the Court for extending the time to do an action which is prescribed or allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Limitation on an application made under Order VII Rule 11

An application for rejection of plaint has to be filed by the defendant before the proceedings of the trial commences.

Order 7 rule 11 Locus Standi

For filing a suit, the plaintiff needs to have a locus standi. He/She needs to show that some legal right of the person has been violated. Such violation should also result in some injury caused to the person. If no legal right has been violated, the person will not have a locus standi for filing a suit. It is basically the ability of the party to show the Court that there was a sufficient cause of action behind the filing of the suit. Under Order VII Rule 11, the locus standi of the suit depends upon whether any grounds were violated which resulted in rejection of the plaint.

In Sh. Ved Prakash v. 3 S.H.O, the judgment was given by the Delhi District Court. The application was decided under Order VII Rule 11 read along with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought rejection of the plaint.

The plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction by way of which he claimed that he was the co-sharer of 1/6th share recorded in the Revenue Board. On the basis of certain findings, it was averred that the plaintiff had no locus standi or any cause of action for filing the current suit. It was thus held that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action or locus standi to file the case. The suit was dismissed on the grounds of being infructuous.

In Pirthi Singh & Ors. v. Chander Bhan & Anr., a revision petition was filed by the petitioner-defendant in the present case against the order of the Ld. Judge of Junior Division. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant has misled the Court by stating the wrong facts. Thus, the application was dismissed wherein the Punjab-Harayana High Court stated that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Ld. Judge. And, thus the petitioners had no locus standi to file the case. Thus, such dismissal.

Dismissal of the suit v. Rejection of the plaint

The difference between the dismissal of suit and rejection of plaint is that there no specific grounds on which a suit can be dismissed. If the summons has not been duly served upon the defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Another ground is that if neither party appears on the day of hearing, then the Court can make an order dismissing the suit. Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure states certain grounds on the basis of which a suit can be dismissed.

On the other hand, rejection of plaint occurs only under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The plaint is rejected on the grounds which have been mentioned under the said Order.

Recommendations

It has been witnessed that the lack of specifications in Order 7 Rule 11 tends to waste the time and resources of courts as well as the parties involved in a matter. A recommendation that we would propose is the introduction of an amendment for the same. The last amendment to Rule 11 was brought in the year 2002 substituting sub clauses (f) and (g) with the current sub clause (f). This clearly has not successfully been able to save the time of the courts and prevent sham litigation. A new amendment, giving a more definition to the current law is therefore necessary.
As can be inferred from the above analysis, the stage for rejection of the plaint has not been specified anywhere in the grounds under Order 7 Rule 11 and the Supreme Court on this issue has interpreted that the Trial Court can apply Order 7 Rule 11 and reject the plaint at any stage due to which it can be seen that various problems arise leading to a wastage of the time and resources of the courts as well as parties. Therefore it is required that our legislature through an amendment of Order 7 Rule 11 clearly states and provides more significance on determining the grounds for rejection of plaint (for example: whether the suit is barred by limitation or whether there is a cause of action present) at the initial stages of the proceedings so before admitting the plaint, the Courts will be bound to focus on certain grounds thoroughly, upon which the plaint can be rejected which could help in the preservation of time and resources of the Courts and the parties as well. The number of plaints that are not rejected at the preliminary stage that do not fulfil the requirements made by the provisions of the law would be minimalistic and certain issues regarding rejection of the plaint can be determined by the courts at the initial stages of the proceedings only.

Conclusion

The Code of Civil Procedure is an exhaustive statute which covers the whole procedure which needs to be followed by all the Civil Courts in India. The plaint is the first step to filing a suit in the Court. It needs to be drafted with due diligence. It must include all the particulars that have been mentioned in Order VII of the Code.

Sample Application by the Defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW AT LUCKNOW

(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

I.A. No. 768 of 2019

C.A. 3746 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sujeet Bhaskar …Plaintiff

Versus

Sujata Bhaskar ….Defendant

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT

THE DEFENDANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That the plaintiff has filed this suit purportedly for eviction of the defendant and for damages. It is being stated that the plaint is liable to rejection under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the plaint does not disclose within itself the cause of action required to be taken.
That without any prejudice towards the assertions made by the Defendants the instant suit does not have any jurisdiction. Thus, the plaint is liable to be set aside on this ground. The plaint does not disclose the publication of the impugned news articles which are required by law within Lucknow. It is to be noted that the plaint does not contain the name of the person or persons who perpetually “read the news articles on the website, and were shocked at the reports of the same.” which defamed the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the defamation occurred in Lucknow.
It is further submitted on behalf of the defendants that besides just reproducing the statements of the Defendant in the news articles on ParaBlog, the Plaintiff does not have evidence to prove the falsity and malice behind the statements so made. The Plaintiff nowhere has disclosed as to why he is claiming that the statements so impugned are untrue and are not based on a fair comment. Thus, it is respectfully being submitted on behalf of the Respondents that merely stating that some statement is defamatory does not render such a statement to be so unless proven.
THAT it is further submitted that the impugned news articles which concern the plaintiff are being justified by the defendant in the nature of ‘Fair Comment’. It is apparent from a bare reading of the written statement also. The Defendant has expressed an undisputed, independent and an academic view that was just based on facts. Such facts were admitted to by the plaintiff. The same has been mentioned in the pleadings which were filed by the plaintiff. It is unequivocal that the comments so made in the news article were based upon facts and a set of true statements in all its entirety. There is no malice on the part of the Defendant towards the Plaintiff. The Defendant has written news articles in praise of the Plaintiff as well.
Referring to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaint is liable to be rejected when it does not disclose a cause of action in itself. Furthermore, the deliberate making of statements in support of the Plaintiff made by the Defendant is indicative of the fact that the Plaintiff has malafide intentions.
It should be noted that ParaBlog news articles deal exhaustively with the current affairs of the legal field in the country. The authors at ParaBlog aim at providing an informative website its users who can gain knowledge. The articles are read by academicians, researchers and other professionals who want to keep themselves updated with the developments in the field of law. The blog never has in the past, or never in the future will hurt the sentiments of any person via its writings and published articles.
THAT the application for rejection of plain is bonafide and has been made for the ends of justice.
It is further submitted that the question of rejection of plaint has to be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 which provides that a plaint shall be rejected if no cause of action has been disclosed in the same. In the present suit, the plaint is liable to be rejected on the same ground, as the plaintiff failed to disclose a cause of action.

PRAYER:

Wherefore in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court that the Court shall:

Reject the plaint;
Ascertain the costs and order them in favour of the defendant;
Pass another order that this Hon’ble Court deems to be fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

It is prayed accordingly.

Name and Signature of the Defendant

Thorugh

Lucknow Name of the Advocate

Date: June 29, 2019 Advocates for the Defendant

Affidavit to be included by the defendant:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW AT LUCKNOW

(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

I.A. No. 768 of 2019

C.A. 3746 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sujeet Bhaskar …Plaintiff

Versus

Sujata Manchandani…Defendant

Affidavit of Ms Sujata Manchandani, aged about 29 years, D/O of Mr Gurtej Manchandani, R/O M-28, Alpha Street, Gamma Nagar, Beta Pradesh – 226080

I, the above-named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

I am the Defendant in the present matter and am well versed with the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am authorised and am competent to swear and depose this affidavit.
I have perused the contents of the accompanying application under Order VII Rule 11 read in consonance with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and say the same is true to the best of my knowledge and derived from the records maintained by me
I say that adopt the contents of the accompanying applications part and parcel of my present affidavit as the same are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

I, Sujata Manchandani, the above-named deponent do hereby declare and verify that the contents of para 1 to 3 are true to my best of knowledge and nothing material to this case has been concealed by me and no part of it is false.

DEPONENT

Verified at Lucknow on this 29th of June, 2019

[Sign]

Deponent

Date: 29/06/2019

Sample Reply by the Plaintiff on an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW AT LUCKNOW

(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

I.A. No. 768 of 2019

C.A. 3746 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sujeet Bhaskar …Plaintiff

Versus

Sujata Bhaskar ….Defendant

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

THE PLAINTIFF MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

On prima facie reading of the application, the plaintiff chooses to deny all the statements and averments made by the defendant, except those which are mentioned herein the reply:

That the contents of the paragraph no. 1 of the application are accepted to the extent that the Plaintiff has filed this suit against the Defendant for defamation, permanent injunction, and other reliefs. The other contents of the paragraph are hereby false and are liable to be rejected. Furthermore, it is being specifically denied on behalf of the plaintiffs that the plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance with the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is also denied that the plaint fails to mention a cause of action. It is being submitted that what the defendant perceives as a fair comment has degraded the defamation of the Plaintiff in the eyes of a reasonable and prudent man in the society.
It is being submitted that the contents of paragraph no. 2 are misleading and hence are denied by the plaintiff. It is being denied that the plaint fails to disclose the publication of the two news articles within Lucknow. It is also being denied that the plaint does not disclose who read the articles and expressed shock at the news articles. It is also denied that the plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground. Furthermore, it is being submitted that the news articles were read in Lucknow. It is wrong to say that there was no cause of action or that the Hon’ble Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The same way, these news articles were being read widely by the people in Lucknow.
It is being submitted that the contents of paragraph no. 3 are misleading and hence are denied by the plaintiff. It is being denied that the defendant has not merely reproduced the various statements made in the news articles. The Plaintiff does not make any attempts to demonstrate the malice behind the statements. It is thus submitted that the Plaintiff has rightly included the cause of action in the Plaint.
It is further submitted that the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the application are false and hence are being denied by the Plaintiff. It is further being submitted that the views expressed by the Defendant are not purely independent or academic in any way. It is also being submitted that the same comments also do not qualify as a “Fair Comment”. These comments are laced with falsity and are of defamatory value. It is a comment which is vindictive in nature. Such comments cannot be said to have been made in good faith per se. By making such statements, the Defendant has hurt the reputation of the Plaintiff.
It is being submitted that paragraph no. 5 of the application is based on falsity, is misleading, is incorrect and thus, this is being denied by the Plaintiff. It is being denied by the Plaintiff that he has not disclosed the cause of action. It is also denied that the present suit is liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned by the Defendant. It is also being submitted that the Defendant has failed to produce any grounds in the present application. The sole purpose of the Defendant is to delay the proceedings of the Court by filing such frivolous and vexatious applications.
Lastly, it is being submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that contents mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the application are also incorrect, misleading and hence are denied. It is being submitted that the plaint was filed with bonafide intention and for the ends of justice. It is also being submitted that harm and prejudice will be caused to the applicant if the application is not allowed.

REPLY TO THE PRAYER:

The Plaintiffs pray before this Hon’ble Court that in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the Plaint, and the present reply, that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present application for rejection of plaint with exemplary costs.

Name and Signature of the Plaintiff

Through

Lucknow

Name of the Advocate

Affidavit to be included by the plaintiff in the reply given:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW AT LUCKNOW

(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

I.A. No. 768 of 2019

C.A. 3746 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sujeet Bhaskar …Plaintiff

Versus

Sujata Manchandani ….Defendant

Affidavit of Mr. Sujeet Bhaskar, aged about 49 years, S/O of Mr. Karanjeet Bhaskar, R/O X-28, Little Winching, Near the Godric Hollow – 226090

I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

I am the Plaintiff in the present matter and am well versed with the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am authorised and am competent to swear and depose this affidavit.
I have perused the contents of the accompanying reply which is being filed by me, has been drafted by my attorney under my instructions.
I have read and understood the contents of the affidavit to the best of my knowledge.

I, Sujeet Bhaskar, the above named deponent do hereby declare and verify that the contents of the para 1 to 6 are true to my best of knowledge and nothing material to this case has been concealed by me and no part of it is false.

DEPONENT

Verified at Godric Hollow on this 29th of June, 2019

[Sign]

Deponent

Date: 29/06/2019