Pleading sufficiency and restitutionary claims can defeat rejection of a plaint where misrepresentation and unjust enrichment are pleaded.

A plaint alleging misrepresentation and restitutionary relief was held to disclose a viable cause of action at the rejection stage. The court confined itself to the plaint averments and accompanying material, and found that the pleaded receipt of amounts for rent differential and renovation expenses, coupled with the allegation of unjust enrichment, was sufficient to require adjudication on merits. Restitutionary principles under Sections 70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were noted as supporting the pleaded claim. The suit was therefore not liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for disclosure of a cause of action, in a suit founded on alleged misrepresentation and a claim for restitutionary relief.

Analysis: The plaint disclosed that the parties had entered into a settlement whereby the defendant received amounts towards rent differential and renovation expenses, and the plaintiff asserted that those sums were obtained on misrepresentation and had resulted in unjust enrichment. At the stage of considering rejection of the plaint, the court is confined to the averments in the plaint and the accompanying material, and if those averments disclose a legally sustainable claim, the suit cannot be thrown out as illusory. The court also noticed the restitutionary principles embodied in Section 70 and Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and held that the pleaded facts were sufficient to require adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---