Inadmissibility of Document no ground for Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 rule 11 CPC: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that the alleged inadmissibility of an unregistered document cannot serve as a ground for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prior to trial.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Patna High Court order that had directed a fresh consideration of a rejection application based on the non-registration of a supplementary lease deed.

Document Admissibility under Order VII Rule 11

The Supreme Court emphasized that rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a drastic measure that shuts out a litigant without a full trial. Consequently, the threshold evaluation must strictly examine the plain language of the plaint averments without relying on defense assertions. Evaluating the admissibility of an unregistered document at the threshold stage is premature, as it deprives the plaintiff of the statutory right to lead evidence under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 for collateral transactions.

The Apex Court observed that "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."

Addressing the scope of trial court inquiry, the Supreme Court further noted: “Without an opportunity to lead evidence in that regard, a party cannot be entirely shut out on the ground that the document in question though required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act of 1908 or under the Act of 1882 is unregistered. 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.”

Background

The suit originated from a dispute where the plaintiffs executed a registered lease deed on October 17, 2011, letting out land for thirty-three years. Subsequently, on February 15, 2013, a supplementary lease deed was executed modifying rent terms to facilitate a bank loan for constructing a school building. The plaintiffs asserted that this supplementary deed did not require registration. Upon default in paying the revised rent, the plaintiffs issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and filed an eviction suit claiming arrears.

The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the unregistered supplementary lease deed was inadmissible and could not be taken cognizance of by the court, thereby failing to disclose a cause of action.

While the trial court rejected the defendants' application holding the suit maintainable, the Patna High Court set aside the trial court's order relying on precedent such as M/S. K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Development Consultant Ltd. ( "2008 INSC 639": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 134) and Sunil Kumar Roy Vs. M/S. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd. & others ( "1970 INSC 251": 1970 CaseBase(SC) 442), remanding the matter for fresh consideration on the premise that an unregistered lease deed cannot be looked into. Other judgments including M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & another ( "2023 INSC 854": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 673) and Satish Chand Makhan and others Vs. Govardhan Das Byas and others were also cited by the defendants. Overruling the High Court's directive, the Supreme Court placed reliance on P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors. ( "2015 INSC 113": 2015 CaseBase(SC) 101) to hold that defense pleas cannot be considered under Order VII Rule 11, setting aside the High Court judgment and restoring the suit for trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.12611 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1011
Case Title: Sheo Kumar Singh and Others v. M/s Sharda Educational Society and Others

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 8083