Pleading scrutiny under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot decide disputed forgery claims without evidence

At the stage of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court must confine itself to the plaint averments and cannot reject a plaint on allegations that an agreement to sell, power of attorney or sale deeds are forged and fabricated where genuineness is a disputed question of fact requiring evidence. The Supreme Court held that such issues must be tried on merits, not decided at the threshold. The rejection of the plaint was therefore set aside and the suit restored for decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of allegations that the agreement to sell, power of attorney and sale deeds were forged and fabricated.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint can be examined. The pleadings asserted that the agreement to sell, power of attorney and consequential sale deeds were forged and fabricated. Whether those documents were genuinely executed was therefore a disputed question of fact, which could not be determined at the threshold on a rejection application. Such allegations required adjudication on evidence.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected on the ground of forgery or fabrication, as the issue required a trial.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the plaint was set aside and the suit was restored for decision on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court must confine itself to the plaint averments, and a plaint cannot be rejected where the objection turns on disputed questions of fact requiring evidence.

---