Pleading sufficiency under Order VII Rule 11: a plaint may fail against some defendants, but a bona fide transaction-based claim survives.

A plaint is assessed on its averments as a whole for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a), and it may be rejected qua some defendants if no cause of action is disclosed against them. At the same time, where the pleadings, read in entirety, disclose a bona fide transaction-based claim and alternate monetary reliefs, the cause of action is sufficient and the plaint cannot be treated as illusory. On the pleaded facts, the claim against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 was held maintainable, so the rejection order was set aside and the suit was directed to proceed against them.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a plaint can be rejected as a whole against some of the defendants; (ii) Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code.

Issue (i): Whether a plaint can be rejected as a whole against some of the defendants.

Analysis: The rule governing rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is applied to the plaint on its averments, and the court must read the plaint as a whole. The earlier Supreme Court view holding that a plaint may be rejected qua some defendants was treated as the governing law, and the later contrary view was not followed. The absence of a cause of action against particular defendants can justify rejection against them even if the suit continues against others.

Conclusion: Yes. A plaint can be rejected as a whole against some of the defendants.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code.

Analysis: The plaint was read in entirety, including the alternate monetary reliefs. The pleadings stated that substantial amounts were paid directly to the tenant defendants at the request of the vendors, and that those amounts were claimed back on failure of the transaction. The court held that these averments were sufficient to disclose a real cause of action and not a mere illusion. The claim for refund and related reliefs could not be treated as illusory, and misjoinder was not made out in view of the transaction-based pleadings.

Conclusion: No. The plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the plaint against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 was set aside, the notice of motion was dismissed, and the suit was directed to proceed against them.

Ratio Decidendi: For deciding rejection of plaint, the court must read the plaint as a whole and, where the pleadings disclose a bona fide alternate claim arising from the same transaction, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) for want of cause of action against those defendants.

---