(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The appellant is before this Court seeking for the
iv. Grant such other and further reliefs as are
just even including the costs of this Appeal in
the interest of justice and equity."
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
2. The appellant had instituted a suit in O.S.
No.177/2021 before the Court of the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Lingasugur, alleging defamation
and seeking compensation/damages on that account.
In the said proceedings, the defendant entered
appearance and filed his written statement. Upon
completion of pleadings, issues were framed and the
matter was posted for evidence. The examination-in-
chief of the plaintiff was concluded and the matter
had reached the stage of cross-examination of PW.1.
At that juncture, the defendant filed an application in
I.A. No.III under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') on
07.10.2023, seeking rejection of the plaint on the
ground that the plaint did not disclose any real or
legal cause of action.
3. The said application came to be allowed by the Trial
Court vide the impugned order dated 05.12.2024.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this
Court seeking the reliefs as prayed for in the present
appeal.
4. Notice having been issued to the respondent, the
postal cover has been returned with the endorsement
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
"unclaimed". In the circumstances, service of notice
on the respondent has been held to be sufficient.
5. Sri S.P. Kulkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant, submits that the suit, as instituted,
is one founded on allegations of defamation, wherein
damages have been specifically claimed. He submits
that the determination of whether the statements
attributed to the defendant are defamatory in nature
necessarily involves an appreciation of evidence,
including the context, intent, and impact of the
words used. Therefore, according to him, such a
determination cannot be undertaken at a preliminary
stage, particularly after the matter has already
proceeded to the stage of trial.
6. He would further contend that the jurisdiction under
Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is circumscribed and is
required to be exercised strictly on the basis of the
averments contained in the plaint alone, without
reference to the defence set up by the defendant. In
the present case, however, the Trial Court has
travelled beyond the plaint and has taken into
consideration not only the averments made in the
written statement but also the assertions contained
in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.III.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
7. Elaborating further, he submits that in the said
affidavit, the defendant has sought to justify the
language used by contending that the words are
neither unparliamentary nor defamatory in nature,
but are expressions commonly used in day-to-day
parlance. Specific reference is made to the word
"Bolimaga", which, according to the defendant, is a
colloquial expression and cannot, by itself, constitute
defamation. It is further contended therein that no
reasonable person would interpret such words as
defamatory.
8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that these
contentions constitute defences on merits, which are
required to be established through evidence and
tested in cross-examination, and could not have been
relied upon at the stage of considering an application
under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
9. It is his further submission that, while considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, the
Court is required to confine itself strictly to the
pleadings in the plaint to ascertain whether a cause
of action has been disclosed. The Court is not
permitted to:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
9.1. evaluate the correctness or otherwise of the
allegations,
9.2. consider the defence of the defendant, or
9.3. undertake any enquiry into disputed questions
of fact.
10. According to him, so long as the plaint discloses a
cause of action, however weak or tenuous it may
appear, the same is sufficient to sustain the suit at
the threshold. The veracity, sufficiency, and legal
sustainability of such cause of action can only be
adjudicated upon after a full-fledged trial, upon
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.
11. He would therefore submit that the impugned order,
having been passed by taking into account
extraneous material beyond the plaint averments
and by effectively adjudicating upon disputed
questions of fact at a preliminary stage, is
unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
12. He relies upon the following judgments:
1. AIR 2003 SC 759 (Paras 7 to 10)
(Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharastr)
2. AIR 2008 SC 3174 (Para 15 & 16)
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
[Kamala & Ors Vs. K.T.Eshwara Sa & Ors.)
3. 2015 AIR SCW 2922 (Paras 9,11 & 12)
(P.V.Gururaja Reddy Vs. P.Neeradha Reddy)
4. 2015 (1) ADR 305 (Para 15)
[Dr.(Prof.) Ashok Kumar Keshari Vs. Manika Gupta & Ors.]
5. 2019 AIR CC 3356 (MAD) (Para 9,10 &11)
[Sathiyam Media Vision Pvt.Ltd., Chennai Vs. Isha Foundation]
6. 2021 (1) KCCR 366 (DB) (Paras 7,8 & 9)
(Smt.Muniyamma Vs. Narayana Reddy)
7. 2021 (4) KCCR 2940 (Paras 2 & 3)
(Kalika Devasthana V.Mandli Vs. Veerupakshi)
8. AIR 2022 SC 1560 (Paras 4 & 5)
(Premalata @ Sunitha Vs. Naseeb Bee)
9. 2022 (3) KCCR 2166 (Paras 15,16,17 & 19)
(Sheshappa Vs. Gangamma)
10. 2022 (2) KCCR 1811 (Paras 10, 11 &12)
(B.Sumithra Rao Vs. Sneha)
11. C.R.P. 435/2022 (D.D.: 4.7.2023) H.P.Sandesh J
(High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru) (Paras 15,18 & 20)
(Sri.Gangadhar & anr. Vs. B.Rajendra Reddy)
12. 2023 (1) KCCR 775 (Paras 6 & 7)
(Mohammad Fayaz Ali Vs. State of Karnataka)
13. AIR Online 2023 SC 862 (Paras 9 to 11)
(Kum. Geetha Vs. Nanjundaswami)
14. C.R.P. 202/2023 (D.D.:23.5.2023) H.P.Sandesh J
(High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru) (Paras 7 & 8)
(M.S.Basavaraj Vs. G.H.Hanumanthappa)
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
15. 2023 (5) KCCR 1297 (Para 23 & 24)
[Sri. G.S. Mahendra Vs. Smt. Komala]
16. AIR ONLINE 2023 SC 1179 (Para 23, 24 & 26)
[Eldeco Housing & Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi]
17. 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 2024 (Para 5)
[H.S.Deekshit Vs. Metropoli Overseas Ltd.]
`18. 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1270 (Para 6 TO 10)
[G.Nagaraj Vs. B.P.Muruthyunjayanna]
19. 2023 SCC ONLINE 2023 SC 2459 (Para 5)
[Keshav Sood Vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood]
20. CRP 12/2024 DD 24.6.2024 (Para-10)
[Sri.Admar Mutt Kaliya Vs. Smt. Vishalakshi & Ors]
13. On the above basis, he submits that the above
appeal is required to be allowed and the impugned
order passed by Trial Court, rejecting the plaint set
aside, suit restored and the matter be remitted to
the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
14. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri S.P.Kulkarni for
the appellant, perused the documents as also the
judgments relied upon by the appellant.
15. Though a large number of judgments have been
relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view
that the controversy which arises for determination is
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
essentially elementary and foundational in nature,
and does not warrant an elaborate review of the
precedents cited.
16. The core issue is whether the jurisdiction vested in
the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been exercised in
accordance with the well-settled legal parameters
governing the said provision.
17. It is trite law, consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of
decisions, that while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to
confine its scrutiny strictly to the averments made in
the plaint. The plaint must be read as a whole, in a
meaningful and not formalistic manner, to ascertain
whether it discloses a cause of action. It is equally
well settled that the Court may, for this limited
purpose, also look into the documents annexed to
and forming part of the plaint, as such documents
constitute an integral part of the pleadings.
18. At the same time, the Court is empowered to
examine whether the plaint is the result of clever or
artificial drafting, whereby an illusory or vexatious
cause of action is sought to be projected so as to
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
avoid rejection at the threshold. However, such an
enquiry must remain confined to the material placed
by the plaintiff himself. The Court cannot embark
upon a roving enquiry, nor can it test the correctness
or otherwise of the averments. The exercise is one of
demurrer, wherein the Court proceeds on the
assumption that the facts pleaded in the plaint are
true, and determines whether, on such assumption,
a cause of action is disclosed.
19. Thus, the scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11
CPC is narrow, circumscribed, and confined, and does
not permit adjudication on disputed questions of fact
or evaluation of rival contentions.
20. Equally well entrenched is the principle that, while
adjudicating an application under any clause of Rule
11 of Order VII CPC, the Court cannot take into
consideration the written statement, the defence
raised therein, or any explanations or justifications
put forth by the defendant, whether in the written
statement or in an affidavit filed in support of such
application. The defence of the defendant, howsoever
strong or plausible, is wholly irrelevant at this stage.
21. The reason underlying this limitation is that the stage
of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not one for adjudication
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
of the rights of the parties, but only for determining
whether the plaintiff has disclosed a cause of action
to maintain the suit. If the Court were to consider
the defence, it would effectively convert the
summary jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 into a
mini trial, which is impermissible.
22. In the present case, however, the Trial Court has
clearly transgressed these settled principles. A
perusal of the impugned order would indicate that
the Trial Court has not confined itself to the plaint
averments, but has proceeded to consider the
defence of the defendant, including the explanations
offered in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.III.
On that basis, the Trial Court has returned findings to
the effect that the suit is a bogus litigation, instituted
under a "frustrated state of mind" arising out of
political circumstances, and with the object of
harassing the defendant.
23. Such findings are, by their very nature, findings on
facts and motive, which cannot be arrived at without
evidence. The recording of such conclusions at the
threshold stage not only falls outside the scope of
Order VII Rule 11 CPC but also results in prejudging
the issues that are required to be tried in the suit.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
24. The Trial Court has further proceeded to characterise
the suit as false and motivated by political
considerations. This Court is unable to countenance
such an approach. The determination as to whether a
suit is false, vexatious, or motivated necessarily
involves:
24.1. an assessment of the credibility of the parties,
24.2. evaluation of oral and documentary evidence,
and
24.3. consideration of the surrounding circumstances.
25. Such an exercise can only be undertaken after a full-
fledged trial, and not at a preliminary stage on the
basis of pleadings alone, much less on the basis of
the defendant's version.
26. It must be borne in mind that the power under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC is an extraordinary and drastic
power, which results in the termination of a suit at
the very threshold, without affording the plaintiff an
opportunity to establish his case. Such power,
therefore, must be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection, and only in cases where the plaint,
on its face, fails to disclose a cause of action or is
otherwise barred by law.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
27. In the present case, the plaintiff has categorically
pleaded that certain statements made by the
defendant have harmed his reputation and constitute
defamation, thereby entitling him to damages. These
averments, if taken at face value, do disclose a cause
of action for defamation. Whether such allegations
are ultimately proved is a matter that lies within the
domain of trial.
28. The question as to whether the words allegedly used
are defamatory in nature cannot be determined in
the abstract or in isolation. It depends upon several
factors, including:
28.1. the context in which the words were spoken,
28.2. the audience to whom they were addressed,
28.3. the intent and knowledge of the speaker, and
28.4. the impact on the reputation of the plaintiff.
29. These are all matters which require evidence to be
led and tested through cross-examination. The
defence that the words are part of common parlance,
or that no reasonable person would consider them
defamatory, is a matter of justification or
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
explanation, which can only be adjudicated upon at
trial.
30. The Trial Court, by accepting such explanations at
the interlocutory stage, has effectively adjudicated
upon the merits of the dispute, which is clearly
impermissible.
31. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Trial Court has
completely misdirected itself in invoking Clause (a) of
Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. Instead of confining itself
to the limited enquiry as to whether the plaint
discloses a cause of action, the Trial Court has
embarked upon an evaluation of the merits of the
case, examined the defence of the defendant, and
recorded findings of a serious nature, including that
the suit is false, frivolous, and motivated.
32. Such an approach defeats the very purpose of Order
VII Rule 11 CPC and results in a premature
adjudication of the dispute, without affording the
parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The
jurisdiction under the said provision is not intended
to short-circuit the trial, but only to weed out cases
where, even on a plain reading of the plaint, no
cause of action is disclosed.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
33. Once it is found that the plaint contains the
necessary averments constituting a cause of action,
the Court has no option but to permit the suit to
proceed to trial, leaving it open to the defendant to
establish his defence in accordance with law.
34. In the present case, the plaint cannot be said to be
devoid of a cause of action. The findings recorded by
the Trial Court are based on considerations which are
wholly extraneous to the scope of Order VII Rule 11
CPC. The impugned order, therefore, is unsustainable
and liable to be set aside, as it reflects a clear
jurisdictional error coupled with a misapplication of
settled legal principles.
35. In that view of the matter, We pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Regular First Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and decree dated
05.12.2024 in terms of the order passed on
application under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of
Order VII of CPC (I.A.No.III) is set aside.
iii. O.S.No.177/2021 is restored to the file of
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2616-DB
HC-KAR
iv. The Trial Court is directed to proceed from
the stage that it was left off and complete
the proceedings as expeditiously as
possible.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
CT:SI
