Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Clever Drafting — Illusory Cause of Action While ordinarily only the averments in the plaint are to be considered for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not powerless to examine whether the plaint is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action, particularly where admitted documents and undisputed facts indicate that the suit is vexatious. Limitation — Partition Suit — Long-Standing Oral Partition Where a suit for partition is instituted after several decades of an admitted or pleaded oral partition, and the plea of limitation is raised, the Court must meaningfully examine whether the suit is ex facie barred by limitation, and cannot mechanically defer the issue on the ground that limitation is always a mixed question of law and fact.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Clever Drafting — Illusory Cause of Action

While ordinarily only the averments in the plaint are to be considered for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not powerless to examine whether the plaint is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action, particularly where admitted documents and undisputed facts indicate that the suit is vexatious.

Limitation — Partition Suit — Long-Standing Oral Partition

Where a suit for partition is instituted after several decades of an admitted or pleaded oral partition, and the plea of limitation is raised, the Court must meaningfully examine whether the suit is ex facie barred by limitation, and cannot mechanically defer the issue on the ground that limitation is always a mixed question of law and fact.

Order VII Rule 11 — Scope of Enquiry — Consideration of Documents

In appropriate cases, documents referred to, relied upon, or admitted by the plaintiffs themselves, or forming part of undisputed prior proceedings, may be looked into to determine whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action or merely an illusion created by suppression of material facts.

Partition Suit — Duplication of Properties in Schedule

Duplication of schedule items and incorrect boundaries in a plaint for partition are not trivial defects and may necessitate a deeper scrutiny at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, instead of outright rejection of the application without proper examination.

Supervisory Jurisdiction — Article 227

Failure of the trial Court to examine all relevant legal aspects while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

Facts

• The plaintiffs instituted O.S. No.2 of 2023 seeking partition.

• The defendants filed I.A. No.918 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of:

  • Oral partition in 1963 acted upon for nearly 60 years;

  • Mutation and enjoyment pursuant thereto;

  • Admission of partition by plaintiffs before revenue authorities;

  • Suit being barred by limitation;

  • Duplication of properties and incorrect boundaries in the plaint schedule.

• The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that only plaint averments could be seen and that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law.

Legal Issue

Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without examining allegations of clever drafting, limitation, duplication of properties, and the relevance of admitted documents.

Findings

1. Mechanical Application of Order VII Rule 11 Disapproved
   The High Court held that the trial Court adopted an overly narrow approach by refusing to examine anything beyond the plaint, despite serious allegations of suppression and illusory cause of action.

2. Limitation Can Be Examined at Threshold
   Relying on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, the Court reiterated that:

   • Though limitation is generally a mixed question,

   • Where the plaint itself, read meaningfully, shows the suit to be hopelessly barred, rejection is permissible.

3. Clever Drafting Requires Judicial Scrutiny
   The Court emphasized that courts must “nip in the bud” suits where clever drafting conceals material facts such as prior partitions acted upon for decades.

4. Relevance of Documents
   The Court found fault with the trial Court for not examining whether the documents sought to be relied upon by the defendants could be considered for deciding the Order VII Rule 11 application.

5. Duplication of Schedule Properties
   The presence of multiple duplicated items in the plaint schedule was treated as a serious defect requiring examination and not something to be brushed aside.

Result

The impugned order was set aside, and the trial Court was directed to decide the application afresh, after giving both parties full opportunity, including on the question whether documents relied upon by the defendants can be considered.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where, on a meaningful reading of the plaint together with admitted and undisputed material, it is found that the suit is barred by limitation or is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action; a trial Court commits jurisdictional error if it dismisses such an application mechanically without examining these aspects, thereby warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Execution of Money De...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Execution of Money De...: advocatemmmohan Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Execution of Money Decree — Appeal Pending — Conditional Stay — Deposit of 50% of Decretal Amou...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Execution of Money Decree — Appeal Pending — Conditional Stay — Deposit of 50% of Decretal Amount together with costs.

Where a money decree has not been stayed in appeal, the decree holder is entitled to proceed with execution. Grant of stay of execution by the appellate court subject to deposit of 50% of the decretal amount together with suit costs is a valid, legal, and reasonable exercise of discretion, intended to balance the equities between the decree holder and the judgment-debtor.

Execution — Auction of Property — Plea of Joint Family / Ancestral Property

A judgment-debtor cannot resist execution proceedings or auction of attached property on the plea that the property is joint family or ancestral property, in the absence of any claim petition by other coparceners asserting independent rights.

Article 227 of the Constitution — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Limited Scope

An order of the appellate court granting stay of execution on condition of deposit of 50% of the decretal amount does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

Facts

• A money decree was passed against the petitioners in O.S. No.72 of 2018.

• The petitioners filed A.S. No.7 of 2021, but no stay of the decree was granted.

• The decree holder initiated E.P. No.21 of 2023, and the executing court ordered attachment and auction of the petitioners’ property.

• The petitioners filed I.A. No.968 of 2025 before the appellate court seeking stay of execution.

• The appellate court granted stay of execution subject to deposit of 50% of the decretal amount along with suit costs.

• This conditional order was challenged under Article 227.

Contentions

• The petitioners contended that the attached property was joint family / ancestral property and therefore could not be auctioned.

• They further contended that directing deposit of 50% of the decretal amount was arbitrary.

Findings

1. Execution in Absence of Stay
   The Court held that since there was no stay of the decree, the decree holder was legally entitled to pursue execution.

2. Legality of 50% Deposit Condition
   The Court expressly upheld the appellate court’s direction requiring deposit of 50% of the decretal amount with suit costs, holding that:

   • The decree was a money decree;

   • The appeal was pending for several years;

   • The condition was reasonable and equitable.

3. Rejection of Joint Family Property Objection
   The Court rejected the objection that the property was joint family property, noting that:

   • No other coparcener filed any claim petition;

   • Execution cannot be stalled merely on a bald plea by judgment-debtors.

4. Scope of Article 227
   The Court held that the conditional stay order does not disclose any jurisdictional error, and therefore does not warrant interference under Article 227.

(The subsequent modification of the percentage was granted only on equitable grounds and does not dilute the legality of the 50% condition.)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In execution of a money decree which has not been stayed in appeal, the appellate court is justified in granting stay of execution subject to deposit of 50% of the decretal amount together with suit costs, and such a condition is legal, reasonable, and does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution; further, execution cannot be resisted merely on the plea that the attached property is joint family or ancestral property, in the absence of any independent claim by other coparceners.

Section 151 — Police aid — Enforcement of ad interim injunction Held, where an ad interim injunction is in force and the plaintiff seeks police aid for its enforcement, the Civil Court is competent, in appropriate cases, to invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to direct police authorities to render aid for due and proper implementation of the injunction order. (Para 3)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 151 — Police aid — Enforcement of ad interim injunction

Held, where an ad interim injunction is in force and the plaintiff seeks police aid for its enforcement, the Civil Court is competent, in appropriate cases, to invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to direct police authorities to render aid for due and proper implementation of the injunction order.
(Para 3)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Inherent powers — Implementation of injunction orders

Held, though the Code provides for grant of injunction and punishment for disobedience, there is no specific provision dealing with implementation of injunction orders; in such circumstances, Section 151 CPC can be invoked to render complete justice and undo the wrong caused by disobedience of court orders.
(Para 3)

---

Civil Revision — Article 227 of the Constitution — Non-disposal of interlocutory application — Urgency

Held, where an application seeking police aid for enforcement of injunction is pending before the trial Court and the relief is time-sensitive, the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, may direct the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the application within a fixed time.
(Paras 2, 4–5)

---

Interlocutory Applications — Ad interim injunction — Agricultural crop — Time-bound relief

Held, when delay in deciding an application may render the relief ineffective, particularly where agricultural crops are ripe for harvesting, the trial Court is required to decide the application without further delay.
(Paras 2, 4–5)

---

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anantapuramu.

2. An ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 13.08.2025.

3. Alleging obstruction in harvesting the red gram crop despite the injunction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.438 of 2025 in I.A.No.241 of 2025 seeking police aid for enforcement of the injunction.

4. The grievance before the High Court was that no order was passed on the said application and the matter was adjourned to 23.01.2026, by which time the relief would become ineffective as the crop was ripe for harvesting.

5. Aggrieved by inaction of the trial Court, the petitioner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

III. ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The learned Judge took note of the legal position laid down by the Madras High Court in S. Kalimuthu v. S. Arumugam, which in turn relied upon Division Bench authority recognising the power of civil courts to grant police aid under Section 151 CPC.

2. The judgment extracted in extenso explains:

   • the three stages of injunction proceedings, namely grant, implementation, and punishment for disobedience;

   • absence of a specific provision in the Code for implementation of injunction orders; and

   • availability of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure enforcement.

3. The Court, however, refrained from granting police aid directly, observing that:

   • the interlocutory application was still pending before the trial Court;

   • the trial Court has the advantage of hearing both parties; and

   • a decision on merits was yet to be taken.

4. Considering the urgency pleaded and the fact that delay would defeat the relief, the Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure expeditious disposal by the trial Court.

---

IV. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Civil Courts have inherent power under Section 151 CPC to direct police aid for enforcement of injunction orders where no specific procedural provision exists for implementation.

2. When an application seeking police aid for enforcement of an ad interim injunction is pending and the relief is time-sensitive, the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, can direct the trial Court to decide the application expeditiously.

3. Delay in deciding such interlocutory applications, where agricultural crops are ripe for harvesting, may render the relief ineffective and must be avoided.

Return of plaint — Requirement of reasons — Judicial duty Held, when a plaint is returned after hearing the plaintiff and after representation complying with objections, the Court is bound to assign reasons for rejecting the explanation; a mere endorsement such as “Heard. Returned.” without reasons is unsustainable in law. (Paras 9–11)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Plaint — Return of plaint — Requirement of reasons — Judicial duty

Held, when a plaint is returned after hearing the plaintiff and after representation complying with objections, the Court is bound to assign reasons for rejecting the explanation; a mere endorsement such as “Heard. Returned.” without reasons is unsustainable in law.
(Paras 9–11)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII — Return of plaint — Endorsement — Validity

Held, where no separate order is passed and the endorsement on the plaint does not indicate that reasons are contained in a separate speaking order, the return of plaint is vitiated for want of reasons.
(Paras 10–11)

---

Judicial Orders — Reasoned order — Necessity

Held, judicial discipline requires that reasons must be assigned, at least briefly, while returning a plaint, especially after hearing the plaintiff on maintainability; absence of reasons renders the order arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
(Paras 9–12)

---

Civil Revision — Scope — Procedural illegality

Held, a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable where the grievance is confined to procedural illegality in returning the plaint without a reasoned order, without entering into the merits of the suit.
(Paras 6, 11–12)

---

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The petitioner presented a plaint on 28.11.2025 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, seeking declaratory and other reliefs against the respondent.

2. On 28.11.2025, the plaint was returned with the endorsement:

   “How the suit is maintainable should be explained for the declaration.”

3. The petitioner represented the plaint on 01.12.2025, furnishing an explanation justifying the maintainability of the suit.

4. Despite such representation, the plaint was again returned on 01.12.2025, and thereafter represented on 02.12.2025 with a request to hear the matter on Bench.

5. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, heard the matter, but on 18.12.2025, returned the plaint with a cryptic endorsement:

   “Heard. Returned.”

6. No separate speaking order was passed, nor was the endorsement indicative of reasons being recorded elsewhere.

7. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

---

III. ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The High Court confined its examination strictly to the procedural legality of the return of the plaint and consciously refrained from entering into the merits of the suit or the question of maintainability.

2. The Court noted from the record that:

   • the petitioner had complied with the objections,

   • explanation regarding maintainability was submitted, and

   • the matter was heard on Bench at the request of the petitioner.

3. Despite the above, the impugned endorsement dated 18.12.2025 did not disclose:

   • why the explanation offered by the petitioner was unacceptable, or

   • whether any reasons were recorded in a separate order.

4. The Court emphasised that assignment of reasons is an essential attribute of a judicial order, particularly when the Court exercises discretion to return a plaint after hearing the party.

5. The absence of reasons rendered the endorsement bereft of reasoning and legally unsustainable, warranting interference in revision.

6. Consequently, the endorsement was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to pass a reasoned order within a stipulated time.

---

IV. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A plaint, once represented with an explanation and heard by the Court, cannot be returned by a cryptic endorsement without assigning reasons; such return is unsustainable in law.

2. When no separate speaking order exists, and the endorsement on the plaint does not disclose reasons, the return of the plaint is vitiated for arbitrariness.

3. Failure to assign reasons while returning a plaint constitutes procedural illegality justifying interference under the revisional jurisdiction.

A plea of non-service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay when the record shows appearance through counsel, filing of vakalat, grant of time to file written statement, and setting of defendants ex parte for non-appearance. Suppression of material facts and filing of a false affidavit with intent to mislead the Court amounts to abuse of the process of Court and disentitles the litigant to discretionary relief. Inordinate delay unsupported by bona fide explanation must result in rejection of condonation application and dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation. Courts are justified in imposing exemplary costs where judicial process is abused through misstatements and suppression of facts.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 5, Limitation Act — Condonation of delay — False plea of non-service — Suppression of material facts

Held, where defendants had entered appearance through counsel, filed vakalat, were granted statutory time to file written statement, and were set ex parte for non-appearance, a plea in appeal affidavit that no summons were served and that the defendants had no knowledge of the suit proceedings is false and contrary to record and does not constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay.
(Paras 8–11)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Appeal barred by limitation — Delay of 950 days — Dismissal

Held, in the absence of sufficient cause and in view of incorrect and misleading averments made in the affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay, the application for condonation of delay of 950 days and the appeal itself are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Paras 11–12)

---

Practice and Procedure — Affidavit — Duty of candour — Suppression of material facts

Held, a litigant approaching the Court is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all material facts; suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to mislead the Court amounts to abuse of process and disentitles such party to any discretionary relief.
(Paras 5–7, 9)

---

Judicial Process — Abuse of process — Filing false affidavit — Consequences

Held, filing an affidavit containing incorrect facts, suppressing material circumstances, and setting up a false plea of non-service of summons constitutes abuse of the process of Court, warranting imposition of exemplary costs.
(Paras 5–10)

---

Costs — Exemplary costs — Imposition

Held, in view of abuse of process and attempt to mislead the Court, costs of ₹50,000/- were imposed on the appellants, payable to the Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Committee.
(Paras 10, 16)

---

Advocates — Duty of care — Verification of instructions

Observed, though no action was taken against counsel, an advocate is expected to exercise due care, diligence, and verification of facts, particularly where the trial court record itself reflects service of summons and appearance of defendants.
(Paras 11–13)

---

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The respondent filed O.S.No.11 of 2018 for recovery of money, which was decreed ex parte on 11.04.2022.

2. The appellants/defendants filed A.S.No.223 of 2025 with a delay of 950 days, accompanied by I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay.

3. In the affidavit supporting condonation, the appellants pleaded that:

   • no summons were served,

   • they had no knowledge of the suit,

   • they came to know of the decree only through execution proceedings in Kerala.

4. The High Court called for a factual report from the trial court regarding service of summons.

5. The report of the V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram revealed that:

   • summons were issued,

   • vakalat was filed by advocates on behalf of defendants,

   • statutory time was granted for filing written statement,

   • defendants failed to file written statement and were set ex parte on 16.04.2019.

6. The Court found that the affidavit filed in support of condonation contained incorrect statements and suppressed material facts.

7. Even after opportunity, the explanation offered by the appellants through a subsequent affidavit was found unsatisfactory and an afterthought.

---

III. ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The Court reaffirmed that condonation of delay is a discretionary relief, dependent on bona fides and sufficiency of cause.

2. A plea of non-service of summons, when directly contradicted by the trial court record showing appearance and vakalat, is factually false and legally untenable.

3. Relying on authoritative pronouncements, the Court reiterated that:

   • litigants must approach the Court with clean hands,

   • suppression of material facts pollutes the stream of justice,

   • courts have not only the power but the duty to deny relief in such cases.

4. The Court further emphasised the ethical standards expected of advocates, observing that while the counsel was not proceeded against, verification of facts was expected in light of the trial court record.

5. In order to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings and deter abuse, the Court imposed exemplary costs.

---

IV. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A plea of non-service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay when the record shows appearance through counsel, filing of vakalat, grant of time to file written statement, and setting of defendants ex parte for non-appearance.

2. Suppression of material facts and filing of a false affidavit with intent to mislead the Court amounts to abuse of the process of Court and disentitles the litigant to discretionary relief.

3. Inordinate delay unsupported by bona fide explanation must result in rejection of condonation application and dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation.

4. Courts are justified in imposing exemplary costs where judicial process is abused through misstatements and suppression of facts.