Short answer. Yes, except for ordinance challenges under the second paragraph of Section 1. The court, on its own or on motion, may refuse to exercise its power to declare rights if a decision would not end the uncertainty or controversy, or if the declaration is not necessary and proper under the circumstances.

What the law says

Except in actions falling under the second paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments in any case where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action, or in any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the circumstances.

Rule 63, Section 5 — Court action discretionary. Read the full provision →

Declaratory relief is discretionary, not automatic

Filing a properly verified petition for declaratory relief does not guarantee a ruling on the merits. The court retains discretion to refuse to exercise its power to declare rights or construe an instrument, and it can raise this on its own initiative or act on a motion from a party, rather than being forced to decide every properly filed petition.

The two grounds for declining

A court may decline in two situations. First, if resolving the case would not actually terminate the uncertainty or controversy that brought the parties to court in the first place, meaning the ruling would be an empty exercise that leaves the underlying dispute unresolved and the parties back where they started. Second, if the declaration or construction sought is simply not necessary and proper given the surrounding circumstances of the case — for instance, where the issue is speculative, contingent on facts that have not yet materialized, or already adequately addressed through another available remedy. Either ground is enough on its own; the court does not need both to justify refusing to rule.

The carved-out exception

This discretion does not apply across the board. Actions falling under the second paragraph of Section 1 — challenges to a local government ordinance — are excluded from this discretionary refusal, meaning the court cannot decline to rule on those particular petitions on this ground the way it could with other declaratory relief cases. The exclusion exists because ordinance challenges typically raise questions about the validity of a local legislative act that affects an entire community, not just the parties before the court, so leaving the question unresolved on discretionary grounds would leave that uncertainty hanging over everyone bound by the ordinance. A litigant who files this specific type of petition is therefore entitled to have the court actually rule on the merits rather than sidestep the case.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.