B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.

The revision petitioner is the 3rd defendant in O.S No. 208 of 2012. The suit was filed for cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing No. 3995/1990 dated 30.04.1990 The plaint filed is in April 2012 nearly, if not beyond at least nearly 12 years from the date of the registered sale deed.

2. As per Order IV CPC, every suit shall be instituted by presenting the plaint which shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI & VII CPC as far as they are applicable. Order VI CPC deals with pleadings generally and to say equally for plaint and written statement or additional pleadings as the case may be and Order VII CPC specifically deals with plaint. Order VII Rule 1 CPC speaks what particulars the plaint shall contain as to name of Court, name, description and place of residence of plaintiff and respective defendants as far as can be ascertained and in case of minor or person of unsound mind, a statement to that effect and facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, facts showing jurisdiction of Court, relief which the plaintiff claims with set off or counter claim or relinquishment as the case may be. So as per Order VII Rule 1 clause (e) CPC the plaint shall mention the cause of action when it arose. There is nothing to say for cause of action a separate Para has to be couched by showing all cause of action therein, but for in practice for sake of convenience with no need to read plaint as a whole at every time to consider existence of cause of action or not. The law is fairly settled that a reading of the plaint as a whole, it has to ascertain whether it subsists with cause of action or not. The cause of action is bundle of essential facts and even a part of cause of action from reading of Section 20 CPC confers jurisdiction as to where it arisen even in part.

3. Now coming to the facts, the plaint at internal page 4 at Para 4 contains cause of action Para specifically saying it was arisen on 27.03.2012 when the 3rd defendant, who is the revision petitioner, has tried to interfere with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over suit property and when plaintiff came to know about the said registered sale deed, sought for cancellation in saying the cause of action is subsisting from date of said knowledge. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that a false cause of action is set up from a clear drafting by created illusion of the cause of action, and as such it is duty of the Court to nip it in the bud at least at the first hearing by examining the parties searchingly under Order X CPC. In fact, a petition under Order VII Rule CPC in I.A No. 34 of 2015 was filed by the 3rd defendant to reject the plaint on the grounds of the suit claim is barred by limitation and earlier there were revenue proceedings in respect of the property covered by sale deed made reference to the knowledge of the plaintiff herein and the suit not filed within three years therefrom as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the cause of action set out as if he came to know only on 27.03.2012 is nothing but a false plea and it is nothing by fraud on court in maintaining the suit as a vexatious litigation with speculative claim taking valuable time of the Court to run the lis and of opposite parties to face the trial.

4. In fact the law is fairly settled in saying to decide prima facie whether the Court has jurisdiction and plaintiff has cause of action to the suit and plaint whether barred by time or not for entertaining or rejecting, the criteria is only based on the plaint averments from reading as a whole and not by considering probable defence of the defendants. It is because of the Order VII Rule 11 CPC speaks from the six clauses among which clause (a) in relation to cause of action and (d) in relation to barred by any law for other provisions are not relevant herein; and so far as bar of suit claim by limitation concerned, the plaintiff avers that the suit is within 3 y