Order VII Rule 11(d) cannot be invoked on extraneous material where diplomatic immunity and maintainability require factual adjudication.

A certificate under section 9 of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 is conclusive evidence on entitlement to privilege or immunity, but it operates as a rule of evidence and not as an automatic threshold bar. Its effect depends on the facts and evidence before the trial court, so it was not finally acted on at the revision stage. A plaint also cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on material beyond its averments; the tenancy and wrongful dispossession allegations, together with questions on diplomatic immunity, commercial activity, Article 31, and section 86 CPC, required adjudication on evidence. The rejection of the plaint was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the certificate issued under section 9 of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 was conclusive and could be acted upon at the revision stage to reject the plaint; (ii) Whether the suit could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of diplomatic immunity and the bar under section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the certificate issued under section 9 of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 was conclusive and could be acted upon at the revision stage to reject the plaint.

Analysis: Section 9 treats the Government certificate as conclusive evidence of facts relating to entitlement to privilege or immunity, but the provision operates as a rule of evidence and not as an automatic jurisdictional bar. The effect of the certificate depends on the facts of the particular case and on the evidence that may be led before the trial court. Since the certificate was issued after the orders under challenge, it was unsafe to finally determine its effect at the revision stage without allowing the parties to raise factual and legal contentions before the trial court.

Conclusion: The certificate was not finally acted upon at the revision stage and the parties were left to agitate its effect before the trial court.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of diplomatic immunity and the bar under section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The power under Order VII Rule 11(d) is confined to the averments in the plaint and extraneous material cannot be used to reject the plaint. The plaint pleaded a claim of tenancy and alleged wrongful dispossession, and section 86 does not create an absolute bar to jurisdiction. Questions whether the activity was commercial, whether the immunity under Article 31 applied, and whether the certificate under section 9 affected maintainability were all matters requiring proper adjudication and evidence. The trial court's cryptic rejection of the plaint was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the material then available.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the appellate order setting aside rejection of the plaint was sustained, leaving the parties to pursue the disputed immunity and maintainability issues before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court must confine itself to the plaint averments, and a certificate under section 9 of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 does not, by itself, justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold without adjudication on the relevant facts.

---