( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) IN an application under Order 7 Rule 11, read with Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint, learned Additional District judge, Agra, by his order dated 23-10-1992, rejected the plaint. Learned judge in coming to such a conclusion of rejection did place strong reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal wherein this Court categorically laid down that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it manifestly appears to be vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled since bogus litigation ought to be shot down at the earliest stage. Incidentally, Order 7 Rule 11 as engrafted in the Code of Civil Procedure envisages four specific cases for rejection of the plaint. Order 7 Rule 11, for the sake of convenience, is set out below:"11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:"

( 3 ) IT is convenient to note at this juncture that in an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, the law has been rather well settled for quite some time in a long catena of cases that the plaint should be taken as it is and the application should be considered on the basis of the averments in the plaint itself and no external aid is available to the court for the purpose. It has also been the well-settled principle of law that the law court should be rather hesitant to exercise the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 unless the factual score warrants such exercise and the matter in issue falls within the four corners of the requirement of the statute. It is for this purpose, however, the necessary averments in the plaint ought to be considered. Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint being the necessary averments in the plaint ought to be noticed at this juncture and the same be read as below:"6. That as stated above, Shri Ram Sahai, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was the occupancy tenant in respect of 3 bighas 13 biswas and owner of the bungalow constructed, built and existing over this area while Smt Siddo. . . was occupancy tenant of the rest of 6 bighas 13 biswas and Shri Ram Sahai was owner of house bungalow built and existing over this area of which Shri Ram Sahai was the sub-tenant as zaili and the nature and status of the two holdings were quite separate and distinct though they constituted one undivided minjumla Plots Nos. 673 (old) and 460 (new ). 7. That after the death of Shri Ram Sahai occupancy tenancy of 3 bighas 13 biswas and sub-tenancy of the rest of 6 bighas 13 biswas in plot No. 673 was inherited by Smt Kaushalya, his widow and after her death by Munni Lal, adopted son of Shri Ram Sahai and on his death by the plaintiff. 8. That Shri Munni Lal aforesaid, in or about the year 1941 transferred under a sale deed to Defendant 1 his tenancy (occupancy- holding rights) over 3 bighas 13 biswas area of Plot No. 673 along with the bungalow existing thereon. The above sale deed had nothing to do with the rest of the area i. e 6 bighas 13 biswas and bungalow and building thereon which continued to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff and prior to him by Shri Munni Lal, his predecessor-in-interest and Defendant 1 or any other defendants have or had no rig