• Today: November 01, 2025

T Arivandanam v T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467

01 November, 2025
1301
T Arivandanam v T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 — Order 7 Rule 11 CPC & Frivolous Suits | Easy Explainer

T Arivandanam v T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467

Supreme Court of India 1977 (1977) 4 SCC 467 CPC • Order 7 Rule 11 6 min read

By Gulzar Hashmi India • Published: 22 Oct 2025

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Frivolous/Vexatious Suits Cause of Action Test Meaningful Reading
Hero image for T Arivandanam v T.V. Satyapal case explainer

Quick Summary

This case shows how courts should deal with frivolous suits. If the plaint—read fairly and as a whole—does not show a real right to sue, the court must reject it under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the threshold.

  • Key idea: No cause of action = instant rejection.
  • Method: Use a meaningful, not mechanical, reading of the plaint.
  • Goal: Stop abuse of process and save time.

Issues

  1. What should courts do to curb frivolous and vexatious cases?
  2. When can a plaint be rejected for want of a cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?

Rules

  • Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: If the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court shall reject it.
  • Meaningful reading test: Look beyond clever wording; ask if any prayed relief can legally be granted from the plaint itself.
  • Early filter: If no relief is possible, dismiss at the first hearing to prevent misuse.
Exam Tip: Quote “meaningful, not formal, reading” + “no cause of action = reject plaint”.

Facts — Timeline

View Image
Eviction case: Landlord wins eviction against firm/partners at all stages; HC grants 6 months to vacate.
New suit by minor partner: Files a fresh suit alleging fraud; seeks injunction against eviction order.
Time extension & assurance: Extra time given on assurance of withdrawal; instead, a copycat plaint is filed before another court.
Ex parte orders: Multiple interim orders obtained; later vacated; another revision filed, alleging bias.
Supreme Court: Slams abuse of process; says such sham suits must be nipped early via O7 R11.

Arguments — Appellant vs Respondent

Petitioner (Tenant/Partner)

  • Eviction order obtained by fraud; needs injunction.
  • Bias alleged; wants fresh hearing before another judge.

Respondent (Landlord)

  • New suit is a sham; same issues already decided.
  • Plaint discloses no real right to sue; reject under O7 R11 CPC.
  • Meaningful reading: Look at the plaint practically; if it is plainly meritless, reject it.
  • Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Use this power at the outset when no clear right to sue is shown.
  • Abuse of process: Courts must be firm with vexatious litigation.
Result: Special leave dismissed; strong guidance to trial courts to weed out sham suits early.

Ratio Decidendi

Pleadings must reveal a real cause of action. If a meaningful reading shows none, the plaint must be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the very start.

Why It Matters

  • Saves judicial time by stopping hopeless suits early.
  • Protects parties from harassment via repeated, copycat litigation.
  • Provides a clear test for trial courts: the meaningful reading standard.

Key Takeaways

  • 1 Courts must reject sham plaints at the threshold (O7 R11).
  • 2 Apply a meaningful reading—substance over form.
  • 3 If no relief is legally possible from the plaint, dismiss at first hearing.
  • 4 Curb abuse of process and forum shopping.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “READ REAL, REJECT SHAM.”

  • READ REAL → Meaningful reading of the plaint.
  • REJECT → Use O7 R11 where no cause exists.
  • SHAM → Clever drafting cannot create rights.

3-Step Hook:

  1. Ask: Do plaint facts, as stated, create a legal right?
  2. Check: Is any prayed relief grantable in law?
  3. Decide: If not, reject the plaint at once.

IRAC Outline

Issue

How should courts deal with vexatious suits that disclose no real cause of action?

Rule

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; meaningful reading; dismiss at the outset if no relief is possible from plaint averments.

Application

Repeated, copy-paste suits and interim hunting show abuse; plaint fails to show a real right to sue.

Conclusion

Reject at threshold; discourage vexatious litigation.

Glossary

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
Rule that lets a court reject a plaint for reasons like no cause of action.
Cause of Action
Set of facts giving a legal right to sue.
Meaningful Reading
Reading pleadings practically to see real substance, not wordplay.
Abuse of Process
Using court procedures unfairly to delay or harass.

Student FAQs

No. The test focuses on the plaint as filed. If the plaint itself shows no cause, rejection follows.

No. Courts see through artful pleading and focus on substance and legal viability.

If any relief can lawfully be granted from the plaint’s own facts, the plaint should not be rejected under O7 R11.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Civil Procedure Pleadings Case Law

Comment

Nothing for now