The name is not defined in the code but can be said to be a statement of claim, a document presented at the presentation of the suit. The whole case is established by presenting the case in court or to that officer as it determines whether the case represents the defendant. In other words, the plaint is a full text, appealing appeal that exposes the core of the suit and sets the legal wheel and runs. Rule 11 Order 7 deals with “rejection of color” and sets out the reasons. The Law, as it was in the beginning, outlined four reasons for such prohibitions.
The current legislation has two new reasons added to it in the form of clauses (e) and (f) which were inserted respectively in the amendments in 1999 and 2002. Clause (e) provides for the rejection of the item “where it exists not filed by both”. The reference, in this case, may be made to rule 2 of Order 5 (amended by the Amendment Act of 1999) which provides that all summonses shall be accompanied by a copy of the property”. This means that this document will be completed in duplicate (one original copy and one copy). Also, the recently inserted clause (e) of Rule 11 of Order 7, which provides that plaint will be rejected “when not filed twice”. Laws 1 and 2 of Order 7 should, therefore, be read together.
Clause (f) comes into operation where the provisions of Rule 9 of 7 are not complied with. Unfortunately, rule 9 provides that when the court orders that the summons be served on the respondent in the manner provided for in regulation 9 of 5 (setting out the details of the operation of the summons on the respondent), direct the appellant to submit more copies of the case. of the order, and the fees payable for the execution of the summons of the defendants.
Particular of Plaint
• The name of the court where the suit was delivered.
• The name, location, and description of the respondent’s residence.
• The name, location, and description of the respondent’s residence.
• A statement of disapproval or minority, in the event that the plaintiff or the defendant belongs to that category.
• The facts led to the cause of the action and when it occurred.
• Facts showing the court has its powers.
• The amount approved or withdrawn by the claimant.
• A statement of the value of the case study for the purpose of obtaining the power and money of the court, until the case warrants.
Procedure for Admission of Plaint
• Title and title: The title of the suit contains the name of the court, the case number provided by the court office and the details of the parties.
• Body description: Contains facts that show the cause of the action and when it happened.
• Relaxation: the last part of the table is a relief. It should be accurate and precise. Plaint should state the relief he seeks in one or the other. This must be done with the utmost care because once it has been filed it will not be supported by oral appeal.
• Signature and Verification: The signature of the appeal is filed at the end of the merger. In the event that the plaintiff is absent for some reasonable reason an authorized representative may sign.
It may be out of place to note here that by non-compliance with Rule 9 of Order 7 there will be two different legal effects: –
- Denial of plain under clause (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7
- Dismissal of case under Rule 2 of Order 9.
These, in turn, are effective measures to shorten the life of the debtor by limiting the debtor to compulsory service that does not allow him or her to receive unnecessary objections to proper compliance but to silence the consequences of non-compliance.
Also, there is a difference between a claim that the plaint does not state the cause of the action and the claim that there is no reason for the suit being taken. By determining whether a plaint reveals the cause of an action or not, additions to that light alone are effective and efficient. Finally, plaint can be completely rejected if it does not reveal the cause of the action. Part of it cannot be denied.
WHERE RELIEF CLAIMED IS UNDERVALUED
Where the claim of the plaintiff’s claim cannot be underestimated and the equation may be amended within a specified period or extended by the court, the plaque will be rejected.In considering the question of whether the suit is properly weighed or not, the court should only consider its own merits and should not consider other factors that may contribute to the court’s decision being the true value of freedom granted.
WHERE PLAINT IS INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED
Sometimes the exemption sought by the plaintiff is popular, but the plate is incomplete and the plaintiff fails to pay the required court fees within the time determined or extended by the court. If so, the plaint will be rejected. However, if the required court fee is paid within a period determined by the court, the suit or appeal must be treated as established from the date of publication or memorandum of appeal for the purpose of reducing and payment of court fees.If the plaintiff is unable to pay court costs, he or she may apply to continue his or her application as a victim.
WHERE SUIT IS BARRED BY LAW
Where the suit appears in these statements on the point that it will be permitted by law, the court will deny that.For example, in agreement with the government, this document does not state the “note” as provided in section 80 of the code provided, this document will be rejected under this clause.But in the event of a rejection of such notice. Similarly, if the document itself indicates that the claim is restricted, the plaint may be rejected. However, if the question of limitation is connected with the consensus, the matter needs to be resolved along with other matters.
WHERE PLAINT IS NOT IN DUPLICATE
WHERE THERE IS NON- COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Where a plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the draft will be rejected.
The reasons for the rejection of the label described in regulation 11 of Order 7 are not yet complete. For other valid reasons as well, plaint can be rejected. Therefore, if this document is signed by a person who is not authorized by the complainant and the defect is not closed within the time provided by the court, this document may be rejected.
MODES OF REJECTING PLAINT
The plaint may be rejected though:
(i) Use of the respondent
(ii) Suo motu is a court if it is compelled to be rejected under order 7 Law 11.
I am inserting this for the purpose of determining whether the plaint discloses the cause of the action or not, the court must be present that all that happened in this case is true, the power to refuse to be constituted under Rule 7 Rule 11 must be exercised only if the court comes to the conclusion that the applicant will not be entitled to exemption always. The provision of the contents of Order VII Rule 11 is compulsory and the court has no option to refuse plaint in the event of an emergency provided.
- NANDI A.K AND NANDY SANGHAMITRA, The Code of Civil Procedure 2nd ed, Kamal Law House,2006
- GUPTA SEN S.P, Code of Civil Procedure, 3rd ed, Kamal Law House,2006
- BASU, The Code of Civil Procedure, 2nd ed, Ashoka Law House 2007
- SARKAR, Code of Civil Procedure, lexis Nexis, Vol 2
- SAHA A.N, The Code of Civil Procedure, Vol-1, Premier Publishing Co. 2010
- MULLA, The Code of Civil Procedure 17th ed, Vol-II, lexis Nexis
 I.T.C Ltd v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1988) 2 S.C.C. 70: A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 634 (India); Church of North India v. Lavajibhai, (2005) 10 S.C.C. 760: A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2544 (India); Hardesh Ores(P)Ltd.v. Hede and Co., (2007) S.C.C. 614 (India).
 State of Orissa v. Klockner and Co., (1996) 8 S.C.C. 377: A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2140 (India); Raptakos Brett and Co. v. Ganesh Proprty,(1998) 7 S.C.C. 184: A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 3085 (India); Begam Sahiba v. Nawab Mohd. Mansur, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 343 (India).
 Meenakshisundaram v. Venkatachalam, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 616: A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 989 (India); Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, (1987) 4 S.C.C. 69: A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2085 (India).
 Mannan lal v. Chhotaka Bibi, (1970) 1 S.C.C. 769 at pp. 776-77: A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1374 (India).
 Order 33.
 Bhagchand v. Secy. Of State, (1926-27) 54 I.A. 338: A.I.R. 1927 P.C. 176 (India); Beohar Rajendra Sinha v. State of M.P., (1969) 1 S.C.C. 796: A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1256 (India); Tej Kiran v. Sanjiva Reddy, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 272: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1573 (India).
 B.L. Chopra v. Punjab State, A.I.R. 1961 Punj. 150 (India); Lakshmi Narain v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1962 Pat. 64 (India); Beohar Rajendra Sinha v. State of M.P., (1969) 1 S.C.C. 796: A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1256 (India); Tej Kiran v. N. Sanjiva Reddy,(1970) 2 S.C.C. 272: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1573(India); Ebrahimbhai v. State of Maharastra, A.I.R. 1975 Bom. 13 (India).
 Gangappa Gurupadappa v. Rahawwa, (1970) 3 S.C.C. 716: A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 442 (India).
 Arjan Singh v. UOI, A.I.R. 1987 Del. 165 (India).
 Order 4, Rule 1(1).
 Order7, Rule 11(e).
 Order7, Rule 11(f).
 Radakishen v. Wali Mohammed, (1977) 4 S.C.C. 467: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2421 (India); Mayor H.K. Ltd. V. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 S.C.C. 100: A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1828 (India).