R.K. ROJA versus U.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 221, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Facts
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 221 
R.K. ROJA 
v. 
U.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 5540of2016) 
JULY04,2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 01: 7 r 11 - Rejection of 
plaint - On facts, election petition by respondent challenging the 
election of the appellant - Application u!Or. 7 r 11 by appellant for 
rejection of the petition by way of counter affidavit - Non-
consideration of the same since there was no formal application 
and court proceeded with the trial - Subsequently, formal application 
for rejection of the petition by appellant - Non-disposal of the same 
and posted along with the main petition as also denial of opportunity 
to the appellant to file written statement - On appeal, held: 
Application u/01: 7, r. 11 can be filed at any stage - Court has to 
dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial court - There 
is no point in proceeding with the trial of the case - Petition is only 
to be rejected at the threshold - Appellant entitled to file the 
application for rejection before filing his written statement and in 
case, the application is rejected, appellant is entitled to file his written 
statement thereafter - Procedure adopted by the court not warranted 
under law - Thus, the impugned order is set aside - Since the 
application does not come within the purview of any of the situations 
u/01: 7 r 11 (a) to (j), application is rejected - Appellant given an 
opportunity to file written statement in the
Election Petition within 
the stipulated period. 
Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and 
others (2003) 1 SCC 557:2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 491; 
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity 
Commissioner & others (2004) 3 SCC 137 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
c2004) 3 sec 131 
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 491 
221 
relied on 
relied on 
Paras 
Para6 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5540 of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2016 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of 
Andhra Pradesh in E. A. No. 222 of2016 in E. P. No. 4 of2014. 
· 
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Amit Kumar, A. Ramesh, Syed Ahamed, Allam 
Ramesh, Ms. Sh ii pi Gupta, Shaurya Sahay, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Prithvi 
Pal, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Advs. for the Appellant. 
B.Adinarayana Rao, Sr.Adv., Suyodhan B., Ms. Tatini Basu,Advs. 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant has two grievances - (i) The Court has not disposed 
of an application filed by her under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for rejection 
of the Election Petition and the same has been posted along with the 
main petition and (ii) She is denied an opportunity to file written statement. 
3. The first respondent herein filed an Election Petition challenging 
the election of the appellant to the 289 Nagiri Assembly Constituency. 
Appellant was declared elected on 16.05.2014. The election petition is 
dated 30.06.2014. On receipt of notice in the Election Petition, the appellant 
filed Annexure-P/4-application for rejection of the Petition, under Order 
VII Rule 11 of the CPC by way of a counter affidavit. It appears that 
the cou11
declined to consider the same on the ground that there was no 
formal application and hence proceeded with the trial. At that stage, 
appellant filed Annexure-P/5-formal application for rejection of the 
Election Petition on the ground that the Election Petition did not disclose 
any cause of action. That application as per the impugned order dated 
27.04.2016 was posted along with the main petition,11~1d thus, the appeal. 
4. The High Court has taken the view that the same "was not filed 
at the earliest opportunity" and that appellant was not diligent in 
prosecuting the application. Therefore, the court took the view that ... 
"this application filed by the first respondent shall be decided at 
the_ time ()(.final hearing ... ". 
5. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court in the
R.K. ROJA v. U.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER 
223 
[KURIAN, J.] 
impugned order cannot be appreciated. An application under Order VII 
A 
Rule 11 of the CPC can be filed at any stage, as held by this Court in 
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. 
Assistant Charity 
Commissioner and others 1 ••• "The trial court can exercise the 
power 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 . ... ". The only restriction is that the consideration 
B 
of the application for rejection should not be on the basis of the allegations 
made by the defendant in his written statement or on the basis of the 
allegations in the application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to 
consider only the plaint as a whole, and in case, the entire plaint comes 
under the situations covered by Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (t) of the CPC, 
the same has to be rejected. 
6. Once an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the 
CPC, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the 
trial. There is no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in 
case the plaint (Election Petition in the present case) is only to be rejected 
at the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to file the application 
for rejection before filing his written statement. In case, the application 
is rejected, the defendant is entitled to file his written statement thereafter 
(See Saleem Bhai and
others v. State of Maharashtra and others2). 
But once an application for rejection is filed, the court has to dispose of 
the same before proceeding with the trial court. To quote relevant portion 
from paragraph-20 of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable case (supra): 
"20 .... Rule 11 of Order 7 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 
"shal I" 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. ... " 
7. In Saleem Bhai case (supra), this Court has also held that ... 
"A direction to fife the written statement without deciding the . 
1 r2004) 3 sec 137 
2 (2003) 1 sec ss1 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
224 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
application under Order VII Rule 11 cannot but be a procedural 
irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction of the trial court. " 
However, we may hasten to add that the I iberty to file an application for 
rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be made as a ruse 
for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement. 
8. Apparently, in the present case, it is seen that Annexure-P/4-
Affidavit dated 15.03.2015, with a prayer ... "to dismiss the present 
Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC ... ", was filed 
within thirty days of the receipt of the summons in the Election Petition. 
However, the court was not inclined to consider the same in the absence 
of a formal application, and thus, Annexure-P/5-Application No. E.A. 
No. 222 of2016 was filed on 22.02.2016 leading to the impugned order, 
posting the application for consideration at the time of final hearing. 
9. The procedure adopted by the court is not warranted under law. 
Without disposing of an application under Order Vil Rule 11 of the CPC, 
the court cannot proceed with the trial. In that view of the matter, the 
impugned order is only to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 
I 0. However, the concern expressed by the High Court with regard 
to the alleged attempt on the part of the appellant for delaying the trial of 
the Election Petition cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we have heard 
the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant on the application 
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. We are satisfied that the said 
Application does not come within the purview of any of the situations 
under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (f) of the CPC. Therefore, the application 
is rejected. In the peculiar facts of this case which we have narrated 
above, the appellant is given an opportunity to file written statement in 
the Election Petition within two weeks from today. 
11. Since the Election Petition has been pending before the High 
Court since 2014, we request the High Court to dispose of the same 
before the end of this year. 
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal disposed of.