The Supreme Court has held that the admissibility of a document relied upon by a plaintiff cannot be made a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court clarified that the question of whether a document is admissible in evidence is ordinarily a matter to be considered during the trial.
The judgment was delivered in Sheo Kumar Singh & Ors. v. M/s Sharda Educational Society & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 12611 of 2026 (2026 INSC 1011) by a Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar. The judgment was pronounced on September 9, 2026.
The dispute arose from a registered lease deed executed on October 17, 2011, under which a plot of land was leased for 33 years, from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2044. The agreed monthly rent was ₹92,550, subject to a 7% annual increase. The defendants intended to construct an educational institution on the property.
Subsequently, on February 15, 2013, the parties executed a supplementary lease deed modifying certain terms of the original lease. The plaintiffs claimed that the supplementary deed was executed in continuation of the registered lease and did not require registration. The defendants, however, disputed its execution and argued that it was an unregistered document that could not be relied upon.
After the defendants allegedly failed to comply with the modified terms, the plaintiffs issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, seeking termination of the tenancy. They subsequently filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent calculated on the basis of the supplementary lease deed.
The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, arguing that the supplementary lease deed was unregistered and therefore could not be relied upon under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. According to them, since the plaintiffs' claim was based on the unregistered document, the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was barred by law.
The trial court rejected the application, holding that the original lease deed was registered and that the supplementary lease deed modified its terms. The Patna High Court subsequently interfered with the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Order VII Rule 11 application.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and held that the issue of admissibility of the supplementary lease deed could not be decided at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The Court emphasized that, while considering such an application, the court has to examine the averments contained in the plaint and the documents filed along with it. The defence raised by the defendant cannot ordinarily be relied upon to reject the plaint at the threshold.
The Court further observed that Section 49 of the Registration Act does not justify completely shutting out a party from relying upon an unregistered document at the inception of the proceedings. Whether the document can be relied upon, including for a collateral transaction covered by the proviso to Section 49, is a matter that may require adjudication at trial after the parties have had an opportunity to lead evidence.
The Supreme Court also noted that the plaintiffs had specifically pleaded that the supplementary lease deed did not require registration. Whether that contention was ultimately correct could not be determined by relying upon the defence at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.
The Court concluded that both the trial court and the High Court had proceeded on an incorrect approach while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11. It held that recording a finding on the admissibility of a document before the parties had led evidence would be contrary to law.
The Supreme Court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law. It therefore rejected the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), set aside the Patna High Court's order dated December 17, 2024, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit on its merits.
The Court clarified that it had not decided the ultimate question of admissibility of the supplementary lease deed dated February 15, 2013, leaving that issue for determination by the trial court in accordance with law.
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Aditya Shankar, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. M/s Saa Chambers, AOR
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy