They Sued Over Their Names Missing From The List. The Act Says Appeal Instead.

What the plaint actually complained about

Reading the plaint as a whole, and apart from a stray averment alleging that some defendants were hand in glove with others, there is no allegation of fraud or conspiracy anywhere in it. Counsel finally conceded that the word ‘fraud’ does not appear in the plaint at all, which took the authority relied on for the plaintiffs out of the picture.

A holistic and meaningful reading shows the plaintiffs are essentially aggrieved by the declaration of their non-eligibility while the eligibility annexure was prepared, and by the declaration of the land as a slum area. For both grievances the Slum Act provides a complete code of remedies and bars the jurisdiction of a civil court.

Why the trial court was wrong

The trial court recorded that the plaintiffs had not challenged any notice, order or direction issued by the authority.

But the eligibility annexure is an order prepared by the authority. It is a decision on the eligibility of a person claiming to be a slum dweller for the benefits of rehabilitation, prepared after examining documents, and containing a decision on whether a claimant found in the survey is eligible.

A person aggrieved by non-inclusion in that annexure, or by a declaration of ineligibility, can appeal under Section 35 of the Act to the Grievance Redressal Committee. What is challenged in the suit is essentially the non-declaration of eligibility, so it cannot be said that no order of the authority was challenged. The bar under Section 42 is clearly attracted.

The order

The trial court grossly erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11, and its order of July 2017 was set aside.

The application was allowed, the plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, and the suit consequently dismissed.

The Court noted that events after the suit was filed are irrelevant to an application under Order 7 Rule 11, and considered them only to see whether anything really survived in the suit.

Who argued it

Frequently asked

Can I sue in a civil court over slum rehabilitation eligibility?

No. The Act provides an appeal under Section 35 and Section 42 bars the civil court's jurisdiction.

What if I allege fraud?

It must actually be pleaded in the plaint. Here counsel conceded the word does not appear in it.

Testing whether a statute shuts out your civil suit

1. Read the plaint as a whole and ask what the plaintiff is really aggrieved by; the labels rarely survive that reading.
2. Find the statutory appeal and the ouster clause together — one without the other does not bar the suit.
3. Where fraud is the exception relied on, check whether it is actually pleaded, not merely argued.
4. Remember that later events do not matter on Order 7 Rule 11; the plaint is judged as filed.

Source. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Revision Application No. 455 of 2017, decided 9 September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.

Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in