Patna High Court
Sri Pashupati Nath Joshi And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Anr on 21 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FIRST APPEAL No.93 of 2017
======================================================
1. Sri Pashupati Nath Joshi Son of late Kedar Nath Joshi
2. Sri. Purushottam Joshi Son of late Kedar Nath Joshi
3. Sri Gopal Joshi Son of late Kedar Nath Joshi
4. Sri. Shyam Sundar Joshi Son of late Kedar Nath Joshi
5. Sri. Jai Prakash Joshi Son of late Kedar Nath Joshi
6. Sri Gautam Joshi Son of late Umesh Chandra Joshi All Resident of
Kahalgaon, Police Station- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur
2. District Agriculture Officer Bhagalpur, P.S. Tilakmanjhi, District Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.J.S. Arora, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ravi Bhatia, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Supriya Kumari, Advocate
Mrs. Prakriti Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Sachin Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Uday Shankar Sharan Singh (Gp 19)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
C.A.V JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2026
The present First Appeal has been preferred against the
order dated 24.06.2017, passed by the learned Subordinate
Judge (Senior Division), Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No.
122 of 2015, whereby the said suit, while hearing on the point of
admission, has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff-
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
2/12
appellant instituted the suit for declaration of title against the
State of Bihar in respect of 21 acres 90 decimals of land
appertaining to Plot No. 480 under Khata No. 284, situated at
Mauja-Kasba, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. The case of
the plaintiffs is that the suit land originally belonged to ex-
landlord Surya Mohan Thakur, who settled the same in favour
of Kedar Nath Joshi by Raiyati Kabuliyat (Hukumnama) dated
31.12.1925
and delivered possession, thereafter continuing to
realise rent and grant rent receipts in his favour. It is further
stated that at the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State of
Bihar, the ex-landlord submitted returns wherein the land was
recorded in the name of the said raiyat, and accordingly the
estate vested in the State. The plaintiffs further assert that
having remained away from the locality when they visited the
Anchal Office on 01.09.2015 for payment of arrears of rent they
were informed by the Halka Karamchari that the jamabandi of
the suit land stood recorded in the name of the Agriculture
Department, Government of Bihar, whereupon rent was refused
and they were threatened with dispossession from the suit land.
3. The learned Sub-Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, while considering the plaint at the stage
of admission in Title Suit No. 122/2015, rejected the plaint
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
3/12
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.). The Court found that the
plaintiffs’ claim of title and possession over the suit land was
unsupported by reliable records. It observed that the certified
copy of the return relied upon by the plaintiffs was a suspicious
document and upon verification from the Collector, Bhagalpur,
it was reported that no such return had been issued from that
office. The court further noted discrepancies in the khata/khesra
details and held that there was no rent receipt or document in the
plaintiffs’ favour after vesting of the Zamindari indicating that
they ever acquired possession over the suit land. The Court held
the suit to be meritless and not fit to be admitted. Accordingly,
the plaint was rejected with costs of ₹1,00,000/-, payable to the
Legal Services Authority, Bhagalpur.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned Court below is wholly
illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and perverse. It was
contended that it is a settled principle of law that while
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
C.P.C., the Court is confined strictly to the averments made in
the plaint and the documents annexed thereto and nothing
beyond the same can be looked into. It was further argued that,
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
4/12
at this stage, every statement made in the plaint is required to be
treated as true and correct and the Court must proceed on that
basis alone. Any dispute or controversy between the parties
cannot be adjudicated at this stage and necessarily requires a
full-fledged trial based on evidence adduced by the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
direction contained in the impugned order imposing cost of Rs.
1,00,000/- payable to the Legal Services Authority, Bhaglapur is
wholly arbitrary, excessive and unsustainable in law. It was
contended that the power to award costs must be exercised
judiciously, reasonably and upon sound legal principles and not
in a punitive manner.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the concerned
Court, while rejecting the plaint and refusing admission of the
suit, has travelled beyond the scope and jurisdiction vested
under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., thereby rendering the
impugned order unsustainable in the eye of law. In support of
the said contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgement
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karam Singh vs.
Amarjit Singh & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240, wherein at
paragraph 15 it has been held as follows:
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
5/12“Before we assess the correctness of the impugned
orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic
principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order
7 Rule 11 of CPC. Here, the defendants seek rejection
of plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e., suit barred by
law). Clause (d) makes it clear that while considering
rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments
made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered
to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this
stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus,
whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be
determined on the basis of averments made in the
plaint.”
6. The said paragraph clearly lays down that at the stage
of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
C.P.C., the Court has to confine itself strictly to the averments
made in the plaint alone and cannot take into consideration the
defence of the opposite party or any extraneous material, and
the question as to whether the suit is barred by law must be
determined only on the basis of the plaint itself.
7. Further reliance has been placed by learned senior
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
6/12
counsel for the appellant in the case of on M. Gurudas & Ors.
vs. Rasaranjan & Ors. MANU/SC/8491/2006, wherein at
paragraph 24, it has been held as under:
“The plaint in question could not have been rejected
under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The Court at that stage could not have
gone into any disputed question of fact. In other
words, while considering an application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court must proceed on the
basis that the averments made in the plaint are true
and correct.”
8. The aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court
further clarifies that disputed questions of fact cannot be
adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and
the Court is bound to proceed on the assumption that the
averments made in the plaint are true, leaving all such issues to
be decided only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of
evidence.
9. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it was
argued that the rejection of the plaint by the Court below is
legally untenable and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it was
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
7/12
prayed that the impugned order be set aside, the present First
Appeal be allowed and the suit be restored to its original file
with a direction to the learned Court below to admit the plaint
and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent State
has supported the impugned order and submits that the same is
in accordance with law and does not warrant interference from
this Court.
11. Having heard learned counsel for both parties and on
perusal of the records available on the file, the point for
consideration before this Court is whether the order passed by
the Court below is just, proper, tenable and in accordance with
law.
12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this
Court will first briefly discuss the law applicable for deciding an
application Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., which reads as
under:–
“11. Rejection of plaint.– The plaint shall be rejected
in the following cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
8/12
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails
to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the
plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped,
and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to
supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be
fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
provisions of Rule 9;
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was
prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from
correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-
paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court
and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave
injustice to the plaintiff.”
13. It is a well-settled proposition of law that for the
purpose of determining whether a plaint under Order VII Rule
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
9/12
11 (a) of the C.P.C. discloses a cause of action, the Court must
confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint alone.
The plaint is required to be read as a whole, taking all the
statements therein to be true and correct, without any addition or
subtraction and without reference to any external material. If a
plaint presents a bundle of facts that establish a potential case,
the Court cannot, at the preliminary stage, act as a trial Court to
decide whether those facts are true or false. At this stage, no
reliance can be placed on the defence of the defendant, nor can
the Court look into any documents, reports, or materials beyond
those forming part of the plaint. The scope of inquiry is thus
limited to examining whether, on a plain and meaningful
reading of the plaint, a right to sue is disclosed, and if such a
right is evident, the plaint ought not to be rejected. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that in order to
consider an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C.,
the Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the
same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit.
What needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are
the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the
matter is to be decided only on the averments of the plant.
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
10/12
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saleem
Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557, in paragraph
No. 9, it was held as under:
“9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
makes it clear that the relevant facts which
need to be looked into for deciding an
application thereunder are the averments in
the plaint. The trial court can exercise the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any
stage of the suit — before registering the
plaint or after issuing summons to the
defendant at any time before the conclusion
of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an
application under clauses (a) and (d) of
Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the
plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement would be
wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a
direction to file written statement without
deciding the application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC cannot be be procedural
irregularity touching the exercise of
jurisdiction by the trial court.”
15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme court in P.V Guru Raj
Reddy Vs Neeradha Reddy (2015 ) 8 SCC 331 has held that the
rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power
conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the
threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of
the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of
plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
11/12
claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving
rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the
same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the
application under Order 7 Rule 11.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karam
Singh vs. Amarjit Singh & Ors.(supra) has further held that
while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the
averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be
considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this
stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit
is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of
averments made in the plaint.
17. In the present case, however, while adjudicating upon
the question of rejection of the plaint, the learned court below
transgressed the settled limits of its jurisdiction by calling for
rent receipts from the Collector for the purpose of verification,
an exercise which squarely falls within the domain of trial and is
wholly impermissible at the stage of consideration under Order
VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. It is a well-entrenched principle,
consistently reiterated in numerous pronouncements of the Apex
Court that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule
Patna High Court FA No.93 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
12/12
11, the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments
contained in the plaint alone. Any enquiry beyond the plaint,
including the calling for external materials or undertaking
evidentiary verification, is impermissible at this preliminary
stage.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order
dated 24.06.2017, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge
(Senior Division), Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 122
of 2015 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to
the learned Court below to decide it afresh in accordance with
law. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Pankaj/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 06.04.2026 Uploading Date 22.04.2026 Transmission Date N/A