Patna High Court – Orders
Sri Uday Shankar Prasad vs Ravi Kumar Agrawal on 7 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.85 of 2023
======================================================
Sri Uday Shankar Prasad, male, aged about-85 years, Son of Late
Ramashankar Prasad Resident of Kotwali Chowk, P.S.-Town Naka no.5, P.O.-
Lalbagh, District-Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Ravi Kumar Agrawal Son of Late Raghubir Prasad Resident of Mohalla-
Bela Garden, P.S.-L.N.M.U. Campus, District-Darbhanga.
2. Rajat Kumar Agrawal Son of Late Anand Bihari Prasad Resident of
Mohalla-Bela Garden, P.S.-L.N.M.U. Campus, District-Darbhanga.
3. Shailesh Shankar Son of Sri Uday Shankar Prasad Resident of Kotwali
Chowk, P.S.-Town, Naka no.5, P.O.-Lalbagh, District-Darbhanga.
4. Ritesh Shankar Son of Sri Uday Shankar Prasad Resident of Kotwali
Chowk, P.S.-Town, Naka no.5, P.O.-Lalbagh, District-Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
8 07-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Civil Revision application has been filed
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC‘) against the order dated
06.05.2023 passed by the in Title Suit No.530 of 2017 dated
16.12.2017 whereby and where under the petition dated
22.11.2019 filed on behalf of defendant/petitioner for rejection
of plaint under Order VII Rule11of the CPC was rejected.
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
2/17
3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the suit land is
located at Mohalla Kotwali Chowk, Mishratola, Naka No. 05,
P.S.-Town, Tauzi No. 3331, District-Darbhanga. The detailed
description of the said land has been provided in Schedule I and
Schedule II of the plaint. The aforesaid Title Suit No. 530 of
2017, instituted on 16.12.2017, has been filed under Section 38
of the Specific Relief Act, inter alia, seeking a decree for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any manner,
from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property, or
selling the same to any person, or creating any obstruction in the
running of the Mahamaya Cinema Hall/Crez Cinema
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cinema Hall’) situated on the suit
property, otherwise than in due course of law. Moreover, during
the pendency of the suit, the defendants be restrained from
interfering with the possession of Plaintiff No. 1 in respect of
the suit property by directing the parties to maintain status quo,
if the circumstances so require.
4. The case of the opposite parties, as articulated in
their rejoinder dated 14.02.2020, is that the application filed by
Defendant No. 1 is misconceived, vexatious, and devoid of
merit, having been instituted with an ulterior motive to delay the
proceedings. The plaint clearly discloses a complete and
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
3/17
subsisting cause of action, comprising a bundle of material facts
entitling the plaintiffs to seek protection of their possession
through a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have
further submitted that the issue of valuation of the suit property
is not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and
fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC and must necessarily be determined
upon evidence during trial. Further the defendant, having
already filed his written statement without raising such
objections at the appropriate stage, is estopped from pleading
the same at later stage. The plaintiffs have thus maintained that
none of the grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC are attracted in the present case, and accordingly, the
application for rejection of plaint is liable to be dismissed with
costs.
5. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case, the learned Trial Court in the petition filed by the
defendants dated 22.11.2019 rejected the same vide order dated
09.08.2017. Aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioner has
preferred this Civil Revision application before this Court,
assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order
on the ground that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
4/17
appreciate the mandatory provisions of law and has exercised
jurisdiction with material irregularity.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the impugned order suffers from patent jurisdictional error
inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it by law. It is submitted that the plaint,
prima facie is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a)
and (b) of the CPC. It is further submitted that the suit has been
deliberately undervalued by showing the valuation at Rs.
1,51,000/-, whereas the suit property, being a commercial
property situated in an urban area, has a market value of
approximately Rs. 4,50,00,000/- as per prevailing market rates.
Such undervaluation, directly affects the pecuniary jurisdiction
of the court and renders the plaint liable to be rejected.
6.i. He further submitted that the plaint does not
disclose any subsisting cause of action, inasmuch as the very
basis of the plaintiff’s claim, namely, the functioning of the
cinema hall, stood extinguished upon suspension of its license
by the Collector, Darbhanga vide order dated 30.12.2017. In
such circumstances, the averments in the plaint are asserted to
be illusory and devoid of legal substance and therefore, the
learned Trial Court has acted with material irregularity in
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
5/17
refusing to reject the plaint and the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
6.ii. In order to support of the aforesaid submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sopan
Sukhdeo Sable and ors. V. Assistant Charity Commissioner
and ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 and the relevant para
read as:
20. “Rule 11 of Order VII lays down an
independent remedy made available to the
defendant to challenge the maintainability
of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to
contest the same on merits. The law
ostensibly does not contemplate at any
stage when the objections can be raised,
and also does not say in express terms
about the filing of a written statement.
Instead, the word ‘shall’ is used clearly
implying thereby that it casts a duty on the
Court to perform its obligations in rejecting
the plaint when the same is hit by any of the
infirmities provided in the four clauses of
Rule 11, even without intervention of the
defendant.”
6.iii. In order to support his argument Learned
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hede
and Co. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614 in which it has been held
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
6/17
that:
“the provision of Order VII Rule11 of the
CPC is mandatory in nature. It states that
the plaint shall be rejected if any of the
grounds specified in Clause(a) to (e) are
made out. If the court finds that the plaint
does not disclose a cause of action or that
the suit is barred by any law the court has
no option but to reject the plaint.”
Furthermore he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986
Supp. SCC 315 in which it has been held that:
“the whole purpose of confinement of such
power is to ensure that a litigation which is
meaningless and bound to prove abortive
should not be permitted to occupy the time
of the court and exercise the mind of the
respondent. The “Sword of Domocles” need
not be kept hanging over his head
unnecessarily without point or purpose.
Even in ordinary civil litigation the court
readily exercises the power to reject a
plaint if dos not disclose any cause of
action.”
6.iv. He further placed reliance upon the judgement of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational
Institution Versus B. Guna Shekar reported on 2025 INSC 490
in which it has been held that:
“We are conscious of principle that only
averments in the plaint are to be considered
under Order VII Rule11 CPC. while it is
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
7/17true that defendant’s defense is not to be
considered at this stage, this does not mean
that the court must accept patently
untenable claims or shut its eyes to settle
principles of law and put the parties to
trial, even in cases which are barred and
cause of action is fictitious.” He lastly
submitted that the relief sought for by the
petitioner is absolutely bonafide and in
accordance with law. The impugned order if
allowed to stand would occasion failure of
justice and cause irreparable injury to the
petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is
bad in the eye of law and is liable to be set
aside.”
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
plaintiff/opposite parties has substantiated the impugned order
and submitted that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in the
facts of the case. He further submitted that the question of
valuation of the suit is not a pure question of law but a mixed
question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the
threshold stage without proper evaluation of evidences. It is
further submitted that even assuming any defect in valuation,
the same would not ipso facto warrant the rejection of the plaint.
7.i. He further submitted that the existence of a cause
of action is to be discerned upon a holistic and meaningful
reading of the plaint as a whole, and not by isolating or
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
8/17
dissecting individual averments. In the present case, the plaint
unequivocally discloses a complete bundle of material facts
which, if taken at their face value, constitute a valid and
subsisting cause of action for the relief of injunction as sought.
It is a settled proposition of law that, at the stage of
consideration under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is
neither required nor permitted to adjudicate upon the veracity,
sufficiency, or otherwise of the pleaded facts, as such an
exercise falls strictly within the domain of trial.
7.ii. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 12703-
12704 of 2025 titled as Karam Singh Vs Amarjit Singh in
which it has been 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.” He
lastly submitted that learned Trial Court has exercised its
jurisdiction in accordance with settled legal principles and has
rightly rejected the application filed by the defendant/petitioner.
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
9/17
The impugned order, being well-reasoned and legally
sustainable, does not warrant any interference in exercise of the
limited revisional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials available
on record, including the impugned order and the order sheets of
the learned Trial Court, the point that arises for determination in
the present revision is “whether the learned Trial Court erred in
law in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC seeking rejection of the plaint?”
9. Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits,
it would be apposite to notice the scope of interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.
This Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the order of the
subordinate Court; interference is warranted only where the
learned Trial Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it
by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has
acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity. Thus, unless the finding recorded by the learned
Trial Court is shown to suffer from a patent error of law or
jurisdictional infirmity, this Court would be slow to substitute its
own view merely because another view is possible.
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
10/17
10. The contours of revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the CPC have been authoritatively delineated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society
v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659,
wherein, it has been held that the revisional power is
supervisory in nature and cannot be equated with appellate
jurisdiction; interference is permissible only where the
subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction or with
material irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction.
Similarly, in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.
Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Hon’ble Apex
Court reiterated that re-appreciation of facts or substitution of a
possible view is impermissible in revision unless the impugned
order suffers from patent illegality or perversity.
11. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce the
principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC which have been explained in the case of
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) and Ors.,
reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has settled the principles and made the following observations:
“12.6. At this stage, the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement and
application for rejection of the plaint on the
merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
11/17
adverted to, or taken into consideration.
“12.7. The test for exercising the power
under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the
averments made in the plaint are taken
entirety, in conjunction with the documents
relied upon, would the same result in a
decree being passed”.
“23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is
an independent and special remedy,
wherein the court is empowered to
summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold,
without proceeding to record evidence, and
conducting a trial, on the basis of the
evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the
action should be terminated on any of the
grounds contained in this provision.
23.5. The power conferred on the court to
terminate a civil action is, however, a
drastic one, and the conditions enumerated
in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be
strictly adhered to.
23.9. In exercise of power under this
provision, the court would determine if the
assertions made in the plaint are contrary
to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for
deciding whether a case for rejecting the
plaint at the threshold is made out.
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement and
application for rejection of the plaint on the
merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be
adverted to, or taken into consideration.
[Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr.,
(2004) 3 SCC 137]
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede &
Co. [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.,
(2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held
that it is not permissible to cull out a
sentence or a passage, and to read it in
isolation. It is the substance, and not merely
the form, which has to be looked into. The
plaint has to be construed as it stands,
without addition or subtraction of words. If
the allegations in the plaint prima facie
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
12/17show a cause of action, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations are true in fact. D.
Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [D.
Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999)
3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v.
Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC
941].
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the
plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly.
vexatious and without any merit, and does
not disclose a right to sue, the court would
be justified in exercising the power under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is
mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint
“shall” be rejected if any of the grounds
specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out.
If the court finds that the plaint does not
disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is
barred by any law, the court has no option,
but to reject the plaint.”
12. Upon overall consideration of the pleadings of the
parties and the grounds urged in the application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court finds that the issue raised by the
petitioner involves disputed questions regarding suspension of
the license of cinema hall and valuation of the suit in Title Suit
No. 530 of 2017, alleged absence of cause of action. In view
thereof, determination of these issues would necessarily require
examination of pleadings of both suits, scrutiny of documents,
and appreciation of evidence with respect to interference in
possession, valuation of suit and suspension of the license of
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
13/17
cinema hall. Such matters cannot be conclusively adjudicated
merely on a reading of the plaint and undoubtedly constitute
mixed questions of law and fact. The scope of Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC being limited and summary in nature, the learned
Trial Court has rightly refrained from embarking upon a detailed
inquiry at the threshold stage.
13. It is well settled law that the scope of interference
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is limited. At the stage of
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
the Court is required to confine its consideration to the
averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon
therein. The defence taken by the defendant or disputed
questions of fact cannot be gone into at this stage. In so far as
the objection regarding absence of cause of action is concerned,
the test to be applied is whether the plaint, on a meaningful
reading, discloses a bundle of facts which, if proved, would
entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed. In the present case, the
plaint contains averments relating to possession and alleged
interference by the defendants. Such averments, prima facie
constitute a cause of action for a suit seeking injunction.
14. Upon Consideration it further appears, the
submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
14/17
suspension of the license of cinema hall pursuant to the order
dated 30.12.2017 extinguishes the cause of action cannot be
accepted at this stage. The said plea essentially introduces a
defence based on disputed facts, which does not emanate from
the averments made in the plaint and, therefore, cannot be
considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC. It is well settled that, for the purposes of Order
VII Rule 11of the CPC, the Court is required to confine itself
strictly to the pleadings in the plaint and assume the same to be
correct, without embarking upon an enquiry into their
truthfulness or otherwise. The alleged suspension of licence and
its legal effect on the plaintiff’s rights are matters which would
require evidence and adjudication at the stage of trial, and
cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold.
Furthermore, the plaint contains specific assertions regarding
possession and alleged interference by the defendants, which
prima facie, constitute a cause of action for seeking injunction.
The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be used
to displace such averments at this preliminary stage.
Accordingly, the said contention falls outside the limited scope
of inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and does not
warrant rejection of the plaint.
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
15/17
15. In the considered view of this Court, The
objection relating to undervaluation of the suit does not justify
rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at the
threshold. The determination of proper valuation, particularly in
a suit for injunction, is not a purely legal domain but involves
consideration of relevant factual aspects and applicable
principles governing valuation of such reliefs. Order VII Rule
11(b) of the CPC clearly postulates that where a plaint is found
to be undervalued, the Court is required, in the first instance, to
afford an opportunity to the plaintiff to correct the valuation
within a time to be fixed. Rejection of the plaint is contemplated
only upon failure to comply with such direction. Thus, the
statutory provision itself indicates that rejection is not an
immediate consequence of an objection to valuation. In the
absence of any finding that the valuation is ex facie arbitrary or
contrary to any statutory provision, or that the plaintiff has
failed to rectify the same despite a specific direction of the
Court, the power of rejection of plaint cannot be invoked. The
issue raised, therefore, does not fall within the limited scope of
inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and has rightly not
been accepted as a ground for rejection at this stage.
16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
16/17
the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has not
committed any jurisdictional error, illegality, or material
irregularity in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC.
17. In view of the settled legal position that rejection
of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power
to be exercised sparingly and only when the plaint, on the face
of it, is barred by any law, this Court finds that the learned Trial
Court has rightly refused to reject the plaint. The impugned
order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material
irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order
under challenge, and the present civil revision application is
liable to be dismissed.
18. As settled above that in revisional jurisdiction,
interference is warranted only when the Subordinate Court has
exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise
jurisdiction so vested, or acted with material irregularity. The
impugned order, though concise, reflects consideration of the
relevant aspects and does not suffer from jurisdictional error or
perversity so as to warrant interference under Section 115 of the
CPC. Since the plaint, on its face, discloses triable issues
Patna High Court C.R. No.85 of 2023(8) dt.07-04-2026
17/17
requiring adjudication after full-fledged trial and evaluation of
evidences, this Court is of the considered view that no such
ground is made out to invoke the revisional power of this Court.
19. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision No. 85 of
2023 stands dismissed.
20. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Harshita/-
U
