IBC Code: Complete Overview and Drafting Workshop. Register Now!

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

sunil (prop)     23 February 2019

Dismissal of application under o7r11 of cpc

Learned Panelist,

It is NOT possible to dismiss an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 of CPC because of default (non-appearance of defendant)?

This question is raised before the Ld HC that trial court cannot dismiss the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 because of default. 

Is there any case law in support or against this issue?

Looking forward for your views.




 8 Replies

Shashi Dhara   23 February 2019

All these makes delay for justice . Both plaintiffs and defendants have provisions in CPC.the advocates use it as defence. It never ends up u dont worry. Enjoy court proceedings .if u think more u become mental.donrt give more prominence .

sunil (prop)     23 February 2019

Dear Shashi Dhar,

The reason for worry is because HC has ordered to remove padlocks put earlier by the Ld. Receiver in presence of police personnel  in compliance with the order of the Trial court on the petition by Non Parties/landlords. What rights of the purported landlord is infringed when tenancy of the subsisting tenant is not terminated and the "new tenants" introduced are all by producing non-related / manufactured documents which even the Ld HC also rejected. 

In the mean time main gate and collapsible iron gate of the suit premises is uprooted and removed from the locale before Ld. Receiver could have complied with the Ld. Court order to remove the padlocks put by him as per impugned order.

Furthermore the defendants and their proxies have destroyed the furniture and fixtures of the suit property. Police complaints and photographs are testimonies of what is happening at the locale. 

All been bring to the notice to the Trial Court. 

Plaintiffs are praying for the direction from the Ld Court to take possession but on the otherside defendants and their proxies by using muscle power and bad hats are freely changing the nature and charecter of the suit property. They are claiming their possession also when there is no such order by the Ld Court of giving any rights to any of the parties. Might has become Right. 

Its worrying! What is found appropriate to allow such frivious petition to be accepted for hearing?

God Save!


sunil (prop)     23 February 2019

** Read 

The reason for worry is because on the petition by Non Parties/landlords, HC has ordered to remove padlocks put earlier by the Ld. Receiver in presence of police personnel  in compliance with the order of the Trial court . What rights of the purported landlord is infringed when tenancy of the subsisting tenant is not terminated and the "new tenants" introduced are all by producing non-related / manufactured documents which even the Ld HC also rejected. 


P. Venu (Advocate)     23 February 2019

You have not posted the material facts.

Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     24 February 2019

Application u/o VII Rule 11 can not be dismissed but "rejected" by Trail Court for 5 reasons only. 

Except where "cause of action" is not disclosed, in all other 4 reasons the plaint has curable action. 

Consult a local prudent/ senior lawyer for better appreciation of facts, guidance and proceedings.

sunil (prop)     24 February 2019

Dear Dr. J C Vashista,

Sir, its otherway around. 

Defendant has filed application U/O 7 R11 of CPC for rejection of plaint on various grounds.

After filing of application, defendant stop attending the proceedings.

After issuing of "Show Cause" the Ld. Trial Judge has rejected said application by his order as under:

    “Defendant no.2 neither files hazira nor takes any steps

None appeared on behalf of the defendant no.2 on repeated calls. Hence, the petition u/O 7 R 11 of CPC dt. 05.12.17 is stand rejected.”

After the rejection of his said petition, the defendant did'nt filed any application for restoration of his "rejected" petition but moved before the HC, filing revisional application under Article 227 with a plea that the Trail Court has no jurisdiction to "reject" his petition filed under O7R11 of CPC withut going into the merits of petition and asking for a stay on all proceedings, work of Court Receiver, till finalization of his revisional application.

Defendant is violating Permanent Injunction order. He is hellbound to part with possession to others/outsiders. He want's Removal of Receiver to cover his illegal activities and drag the suit for years. 

Is there any such provision that Order 7 Rule 11 petition cannot be rejected if defendant/applicant does not take any steps / participate in court proceedings?

Please advice.




sunil (prop)     24 February 2019

Dear P Venu,

The material facts are:

1) Title suit between partners of a firm for rights/interest/title of the plaintff on the rented property of the business place of the firm.

2) After ad-interim injunction order was made Absolute, Court Receiver was appointed under order 40 rule 1 of CPC.

3) Suit property is entire floor of a building.

4) Defendant is trying to give different parts of the suit property to outsiders. Landlord is also with the defendant and issuing rent bills to outsiders claiming their "possession" in the suit property.

5) Upon Ld Receiver's report and Plaintiff's petition under Sec/151 CPC, Ld. Court ordered Ld Receiver to put his padlocks on the entrance of the suit property with police help. 

6) Non Party/Landlord moved an application under Article 22. 

7)  2(two) parties preferred interlocutory application bearing CAN xxxx of 2018 and CAN xxxx of 2018 to become added Defendants in the suit.  

 8) Ld. Court  ordered.  excerpts as under: 

“However, it is made clear that no prima facie case sufficient to be added as parties to the present revisional application has been made out by the applicants.

Accordingly, CAN 9706 of 2018 and CAN 9708 of 2018 are dismissed on contest without any order as to costs”

“to the extent that the portion of the said order, whereby the Receiver was authorised to put all the entrances of the suit premises under his lock and key and was directed not to deliver any duplicate key or keys of the said premises to any of the parties to the suit till further order, is set aside.”

7) As there was no direction what will happen to suit property / who can take possession after Ld Receiver removes his padlocks, Plaintiff filed application in the Trial Court for handing over the property to them after Ld. Receiver removes his padlocks.

8) Before Ld Receiver completed the order, Defendand and his men and purported landlord break open all the padlocks put earlier by the Receiver, main gate (wooden), collapsible iron gate were uprooted and removed. 

9) Ld Receiver neither made any police complaint nor informed the Ld Court, 

9) Police complaints were lodged by the Plaintiff but they are sitting tight after lodging a formal FIR on the pretext that the matter is "civil in nature".

10) Ld. Trial Court was also notified by a petition.

11) Ld. Trial Court has asked report from Ld Receiver and he is taking time to submit his report. 

12) utsiders are claiming their "possession" no matter it is forced / illegal / criminal act.

Now Plaintiff is awaiting for some orders from the Ld Court. 





P. Venu (Advocate)     24 February 2019

If the defendants are violating the interim injunction, you can appropriate action as provided under Rule 2A Order 39. It is unlikely that High Court would grant any favourable order or even admit the Revision(?) Application.

If the Receiver is not properly discharging his functions, you may get appropriate directions issued to him/her.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query