On September 9, 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India issued an important ruling in the matter of Sheo Kumar Singh and Others versus M/s Sharda Educational Society and Others (2026 INSC 1011). The matter was an appeal concerning an order from the Patna High Court, which deemed an unregistered supplementary lease deed inadmissible while evaluating the dismissal of the plaint. The Supreme Court needed to decide if the acceptability of a document referenced in the plaint can serve as a basis for dismissing the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The plaintiffs, as appellants, had leased land to the respondent society for a duration of 33 years through a registered lease deed dated October 17, 2011. A later executed unregistered supplementary lease deed was created to enable a bank loan, altering the lease conditions, such as the monthly rent. Upon the defendants supposedly failing to pay the adjusted rent, the plaintiffs sent a termination notice and initiated a lawsuit for eviction and overdue payments. The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaint, claiming that the supplementary deed required mandatory registration and was not admissible according to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.The Trial Court refused, but the High Court reversed that order.
However, the Supreme Court found that both the Trial Court and the High Court had misdirected themselves. Applying the settled test that only the plaint’s averments are to be examined, the Court held that the admissibility of a document is a matter for trial, and that recording a finding of inadmissibility before the parties lead evidence would be contrary to law. It further held that a party relying on an unregistered document cannot be shut out at the threshold without an opportunity to prove it or to invoke the proviso to Section 49, which permits its use as evidence of a collateral transaction.
In its final order, the Supreme Court has allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, rejected the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 and directed the Trial Court to decide the suit on merits. The judgment reiterates that the power to reject a plaint is confined to defects apparent from the plaint itself, and cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial on evidence.