Trial Court Cannot Reject Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 Without Deciding Pending Amendment Application: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant decision, has held that a trial court cannot proceed to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC while an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 is pending.

A single-judge bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi observed that when a plaintiff seeks to remedy potential defects through an amendment, such an application must be considered first in the interest of justice. The Court further clarified that a sale deed executed without consideration and through deception is void ab initio under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit seeking to declare a sale deed null and void, alleging that the defendant had played a fraud by handing over post-dated cheques for the sale consideration and subsequently taking them back on a false pretext. The Trial Court had rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, placing reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dahiben vs. Arvind Bhai Kanlyanji Bhansali, holding that non-payment of consideration is only a ground for a recovery suit, not for cancellation of a sale deed. Aggrieved by this rejection, the plaintiff approached the High Court.

The primary questions before the court were whether the Trial Court erred in deciding the application for rejection of the plaint while an amendment application was pending. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the pleadings in the plaint, which alleged fraud and complete absence of sale consideration, could be summarily rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Priority Of Amendment Applications Over Rejection Of Plaint

The High Court noted that the plaintiff had filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 on March 21, 2023, while the defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed much later, in October 2023. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court was well aware of the pending amendment application but chose to ignore it while dismissing the suit.

Relying on the precedent in Smt. Suchitra Dubey vs. Sattar, the Court observed that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 are not restricted by Order 7 Rule 11. The Bench noted that if there is an objection regarding the maintainability of a claim and the plaintiff seeks to remedy that objection through an amendment, such an application "needs to be considered first."

"Where an application under Order 6 Rule 17 is filed and is pending then the same ought to be decided first prior to decision on the application under Order 7 Rule 11."

Sale Without Consideration Is Not A Sale In The Eyes Of Law

Addressing the merits of the rejection, the Court examined the nature of the transaction under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It noted that the plaintiff, an uneducated villager, was deceived into handing back cheques and the sale deed was executed without any actual payment reaching him. The Court found that this was not a simple case of "non-payment" but one of "deception and fraud."

The Court highlighted that for a valid sale under Section 54, there must be a price paid or promised. If the price is neither paid nor promised for a future date, the transaction does not constitute a sale. The Bench cited the Apex Court’s ruling in Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar, affirming that such a void document does not require a formal challenge as its illegality can be set up even in collateral proceedings.

"If a sale deed... is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void."

Distinguishing The Dahiben Judgment On Facts

The High Court observed that the Trial Court had "incorrectly relied" on the Dahiben judgment. In Dahiben, the suit was filed five years after the execution of the deed and after multiple third-party rights had been created. In the present case, the plaintiff had filed the suit within eight months of the execution, immediately upon realizing the fraudulent intent of the defendant.

The Court noted that while Dahiben dealt with a case where the story of non-payment appeared "unnatural" due to gross delay, the present case involved specific pleadings of fraud and an immediate legal challenge. The Bench reiterated that for the purposes of Order 7 Rule 11, the "entirety of the averments in the plaint" must be taken into account, including the allegations of deception.

"The real story of the plaint is that execution of the sale deed is based on deception and fraud. In view of this the plaint could not have been rejected without recording evidence of respective parties."

In its concluding remarks, the Court held that the Trial Court committed a procedural and legal error by ignoring the pending amendment and misapplying the law regarding void transactions. The High Court set aside the impugned order dated August 2, 2024, and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court. The suit has been restored to its original number for a fresh trial after framing of issues.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026