The Indian Courts are notoriously infamous for a ginormous backlog in its judicial system. So much so that many who are aggrieved don't seek litigation as a source of remedy because of inefficient dispensation of justice. To control this problem and decrease the burden of courts with the suits that finally make it to litigation, the legislators have drafted legislation in the Civil Procedure Code for locus standi of suits in Order VII Rule 11[1]. A comprehensive Rule exists to deal with the rejection of the claim in various issues within the suit, however, it becomes important to look closely at Order VII Rule 11 sub-rule (d)[2] when looking into suits barred by any law.

In order to keep the legal system from becoming overburdened with trivial or speculative claims, locus standi aids in limiting access to the courts to individuals who have a real stake in the result. The courts can direct their resources on instances where a legitimate, tangible problem has to be rectified as a result of this focus.

The need for a direct interest is because it keeps the judiciary devoted to matters appropriate for judicial resolution by guaranteeing that the courts address real disputes rather than hypothetical ones, thereby giving the role of an activist. Thus, Order VII Rule 11 sub-rule (d) deals with great scrutiny of the circumstances in which the plaint's statement suggests that the claim is precluded by any legislation in order to establish the locus standi in the court.

'Bar by law' here essentially establishes a threshold and focuses on circumstances in which the court can infer that the suit is legally prohibited from the plaint's contents. Statutes that limit certain types of claims or place restrictions on certain types of claims might be examples of this. This rule upholds that the sole reason taken into account for rejection is the content of the plaint. The court need not consider any information not contained in the plaint, such as evidence or supporting paperwork, in determining whether the claim is barred.

The plaint must be dismissed if the claims, even if they are accepted at face value, demonstrate that the lawsuit is unjustified. Various legal bars in place are the Limitation Act and subject-matter-specific statutory bars under special laws which bars suits that contravene the moratorium period. The clause safeguards the legal system, but it also makes litigants carefully consider whether their claims are legitimate before filing a case. In the event that a plaint is rejected under this section, the plaintiff may be required to file a new case, if allowed by law, or seek other legal remedies, often at considerable expense. This was essentially put into place so that the court could have a chance to dismiss a bogus suit at the preliminary hearing.[3]

In cases related to this provision, the court has stressed that in order to stop the misuse of the legal system, judges should not be reluctant to apply it in discarding the plaint. While this remains the historic stance on the application of this provision, recent judicial interpretations of the same have also included the Limitation Act and subject-matter-specific statutes for barring the suit in cases where its plaint itself discloses that it is barred by any law. Thus, the application of this provision gives a comprehensive understanding of the judicial process striving to be efficient and effective by allowing only legally tenable actions to advance.

Objective of the Provision
The provision has been laid out in such a manner that it invokes a 'shall' condition on the rejection of a plaint, thus giving suo moto powers for the rejection on the grounds laid down thereafter.[4] Therefore, the rejection based on sub-rule (d) in this section necessitates for a plaint to be prima facie examined for a 'bar by any law', the reading of which may not have to be formal but has to be sincere so that frivolous suits do not make it to litigation.

This rule is set to bring out the inherent issues in the plaint which does not render the right to file a fresh plaint invalid but does keep the court from wasting its time. Due to the primacy of the subject matters that go through litigation, no stage of proceedings which puts a bar on bringing out the issue regarding a frivolous matter. Up until before the conclusion of the trial, it is an argument that can be made before the court. It functions on the principle of bringing it to the court's attention at the earliest opportunity.

Primarily, the criteria for using the authority granted by Order VII Rule 11 is whether or not a decree would be issued if all of the allegations in the plaint were accepted, along with the supporting documentation.[5] The question is whether a decree can be issued if all of the allegations in the plaint were found to be true if considered in its rawest form. The Court stated in Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. case[6] that it is not acceptable to choose a sentence or section and read it alone. It is necessary to investigate the substance rather than just the form. The plaint must be interpreted exactly as written, with no words added or removed.[7]

"It is well-established, as held by several courts, that the court will dismiss a lawsuit if it seems from the plaint that it is prohibited by any legislation. However, under sub-rule (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Court cannot reject the plaint in cases where it does not appear to be so and needs further examination. Put another way, if there is any uncertainty or if the Court is not positive that the claim is banned by a particular statute."[8]

This limited applicability of the bar placed by law allows for inference to be made for the purpose of averments of the plaint.[9] It is not possible to resolve disputed issues when evaluating an application submitted in accordance with Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Rule 11(d) of Order VII only applies in situations when the plaintiff's plaint statement unequivocally demonstrates that the claim is prohibited by all applicable laws.[10] For Order VII Rule 11 CPC to come into action, the plaint should elaborate and make it lucid that it is against the laws and statutes in place, without any alterations or deletions.

That is why, as stated by sub-rule (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is a deep-rooted principle that when a plaint is evaluated to be outlawed by any legislation, the averments extrapolated in the plaint per se must be regarded and assumed to be true.[11] It is not permitted and is entirely immaterial to review the points presented in the written statement or any other piece of evidence. "It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plain can be rejected."[12]

Additionally, except for the Law of Limitation other statutory bars applicable to rejection of the plaint are in cases "where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree, is at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased. If not, then for that reason the plaint shall be rejected."[13]

Order VII Rule 11 (d) Civil Procedure Code is quite straightforward in its wording in the sense that it must include the law of limitations and subject- matter specific provisions. On the point of Limitation Law as an existing bar under this rule, "A plaint cannot be partially rejected when some of the relief requested in it is within the allotted time frame and even if some of the remedy is prohibited by statute. A well-established legal principle prohibits the partial rejection of a plaint."[14] The stance on laws that are barred by virtue of time has a lucid explanation while among other subject-matter-specific statutes, the judicial position on operation of res judicata remains a moot point.

As contended in the case of G. Subramani[15], the judges held that the court handling a later suit is not permitted to try a subject that was directly and significantly addressed as a matter of contention in a suit that has already been determined. Therefore, it cannot be too stretched to suggest that the bar of res judicata shall be the basis for the rejection of the plaint. Instead, the abovementioned rule can be construed to mean that such a suit might be dismissed on the grounds of bar of res judicata.

Both factual and legal issues are brought up to be deliberated and determined when the res judicata is questioned. In this case, Order VII Rule 11 cannot be applied to reject a plaint on the grounds when the defendant's written statement or an affidavit in support of the application is filed without applying the law procedurally. Additionally, a recent position was held by the Supreme Court which sets into stone the position of res judicata claims with the effect of Order VII Rule 11(d). The court in Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood held that the provision of res judicata cannot find its effectiveness in this rule of the Civil Procedure Code merely for the reason that "the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment of the Appellate Courts."[16]

Issues in the Provision
An imperative question that comes along with the issue of locus standi in the court is what happens to those plaints that actually have a legitimate point of law in contention but are rejected on the grounds of Order VII Rule 11. The scope for the application of this provision is limited to determining the rejection of the plaint solely on the basis of the averment made in the plaint and the documents it refers to. Denials are also made unfairly in adherence to the contents of the plaint provided that the plaintiff's case has not been adequately at the first instance or if more details are made lucid further in the proceedings.

Thus, it makes the threshold for acceptance of a plaint higher than normal because it gives a static structure for determining the relevancy via the prescribed norms of an acceptable plaint. Leaving little to no room for judicial discretion if the criteria for refusal are met, instead of giving a chance to amend the plaint or provide remedies that might help salvage the claim before the court as per this provision is one of the inherent deficiencies for bona fide litigants.

What lags in the application of Order VII Rule 11 are the issues that come with prima facie assessing the plaints and they subsist due to the averments in the plaint that do not disclose the cause of action. Further, this issue over the cause of action comes into question when sub-rule (d) of this provision is applied to assess the validity of the plaint. The same was in contention before the Supreme Court where the suit was barred under the said provision because of the limitation period that was determined from extraneous factors and not the plaint itself.[17]

This particular case brings out the misapplication because the courts considered facts that were not disclosed in the plaint. While the drawback of the rule itself is that it has very little room for judicial discretion, in cases where any discretion is exercised, the judges do move out of the scope of the rule because they look into factors outside the plaint and relevant document. Even though this brings a dichotomy in mind on the discretionary powers, an essential factor while understanding this provision is that discretion needs to be applied with the legalese of the statute in order to constrict over-enthusiastic discretion leading to judicial overload of cases.

This would save the time of the court from admitting bogus litigation but at the same time give a fair chance to those who make a fair case so that they do not overstep their boundary, however, be able to maintain a boundary in assessing plaints. Additionally, sub-rule (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code tries to procedurally stop litigants from bringing mala fide cases to court, it serves as an excellent tool for deterrence against procedural manipulation for those seeking a delay causing harassment to the opposite parties.

Self-represented litigants might find it difficult to achieve the legal criteria under Order VII Rule 11 due to the technical difficulties of preparing a plaint. This may lead to the dismissal of worthy cases for technical errors rather than the lack of a valid cause of action.

A Special Leave Petition made it to the Supreme Court on the grounds that a plaint was dismissed due to an alleged legal bar, namely the application of a provision that the plaint claimed did not clearly preclude the litigation.[18] The ruling made by the court was based on the interpretation of legal obstacles that require additional evidence and reasoning in order for the plaint's claims to be made clear before the court. The tactic was critiqued, and an emphasis was laid down on legal restrictions and the necessity of their clarity within the plaint so that it cannot be implied from legal interpretations made at a later point of time.

A lack of academic literature against numerous judicial interpretations is one of the biggest criticisms to this provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. While a lot of case laws and opinionated articles exist for litigants to understand the far-reaching implication of application of Order VII Rule 11, however, nothing really dwells on the non-exhaustive power of this provision.

In consequence, judicial framework in India is highly driven by case precedents, essentially because we are a common law jurisdiction which relies heavily on the judiciary. This leads to an interlude between academic interpretation and procedural application. Following judicial precedents creates a bar in its own self because each judgement is specific to the fact scenario presented before the judge, this seems to disregard situations in various other courts where a plain is rejected under this provision.

There needs to be an established principle in interpreting the application so that the provision is a rule of law instead of it being an exception to that rule. The lack thereof is the biggest reason why there remain drawbacks within the provision in the strive of being able to access justice fairly.

Comparative Analysis
A plaint not being barred by any law is an essential procedural formality for the case to move forward in the court. While it has been contented above as well as witnesses in many Indian case laws that judges have made an active effort in accepting plaints if the plaintiff furnishes a good enough reason for the delay in seeking justice. In contemporary times, COVID-19 serves as the biggest example for delayed filing of plaints, however a leeway was provided to all those aggrieved in that time frame in which the Limitation Law would apply.

The idea of this provision is to bar plaintiffs from bringing bogus suits to litigation and not to take away civil remedy. Due to this very nature of the provision, its primacy is what seeps into every law around the globe to establish a procedural barrier.

In United States of America, Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[19] exactly talks about motion to dismiss a claim over which relief is to be granted. Even though the American federal rules do not delve into the semantics of 'barred by law' like the Indian code, it does broadly encompass the same in it wording. The application of the American provision is as such that it cannot be statutorily prohibited, has immunity doctrines and cannot be violative of fundamental rights.

A standard of plausibility is applied for the purpose of judicial interpretation to check if the claims are legally permissible. United Kingdom also has a similar provision under Part 3.4 of Civil Procedure Rule 1998[20] where the court exercise discretion in applying this bar in order to balance judicial efficacy to ensure accessibility to justice. More or less parallel provision in Australia is Part 13.4 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rule,[21] in Canada is Rule 21.01 of Ontario Rule of Civil Procedure[22] and in Singapore is Order 18 Rule 19, Rules of Court[23] where the aims remain the same in essence.

Conclusion:
Procedural laws are set into place to establish a framework for the litigants to approach the court if they are aggrieved under governing provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Order VII Rule 11 dictates the rejection of plaints, so the vexatious and frivolous claims do not deaccelerate the judiciary. Additionally sub-rule (d) of this provision, provides that one of the bases of rejection can be if the plaint is 'barred by any law'. While plaintiffs find these obstacles as a barrier in seeking justice, it provides for a procedural way of getting to court.

While it may be too literal in its application for the purpose of conferring to the 'procedural' connotation ascribed to it, a little judicial discretion becomes necessary in order to give a leeway to those who approach with bona fide intention. Even though a critical checkpoint, it should not aim at prematurely rejecting the plaints. This provision is a vital tool to apply for the purpose of manifesting an equitable balance between procedural adeptness and judicial interpretation.

Finally, it is the need of the hour for scholars to be in academic research in this area so that it can facilitate in eradicating the barrier that has been erected between legal theory and practice for the welfare of bona fide litigants. To avoid inadvertently preventing access to justice under this provision, a reformatory step needs to be taken to enhance clarity, judicial interpretation, and literacy to litigants on this provision. Ultimately, even though Order VII Rule 11(d) must be applied as a procedural filter, it needs to go above and beyond to become a judicious gatekeeper in order to ensure the right to justice.

End Notes:

1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order VII Rule 11.
2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 (d).
3. T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another AIR 1977 SC 2421.
4. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137.
5. Dahiben v. Arvinbhai Kalyanji Bhansai 2020 SCC On line 563.
6. Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and Co. (2007) 5 SCC 614.
7. Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M. V. Sea Success I & Anr. (2004) 9 SCC 512.
8. Kasthuri and others v. Baskaran and another 2004(2) LW 429 Mad.
9. M. Nelson babu v. Kamalesh Babu and another 2009(5) CTC 814.
10. Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association 2005(4) CTC 489(SC) 28.
11. Ramesh B. Desai and Others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Others AIR 2006 SC 3672.
12. P. V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others (2015) 8 SCC 331.
13. Sakshi Shairwal, Interpreting Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Lexicology (Sep. 2, 2020), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=54dd49e1-d888-4264-b916-64f379ee8fe4.
14. Chandra v. Reddappa Reddy 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 715.
15. G. Subramani v. V. Rajasekaran and Anr. 2013(4) CTC 468.
16. Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood and Others 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799.
17. Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddy Suryarao and Others (2018) 14 SCC 1.
18. H.S. Shivananda v. Smt. M. Rajeshwari (2008) 2 SCC 768.
19. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6).
20. Civil Procedure Rule, 1998, Part 3.4.
21. Uniform Civil Procedure Rule, Part 13.4.
22. Ontario Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 21.01.
23. Rules of Court, Order 18 Rule 19.