Venugopal Gowda, J.

In this appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs, the only question involved is, whether the Trial Court is right in holding that, the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC was liable to rejection. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the plaint.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants contends that, if the plaint allegations containing the material facts are read togetber in proper perspective, ‘a cause of action’ has clearly been pleaded and the Trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that, it does not disclose any cause of action. Learned Counsel further contends that, the impugned order of the Trial Court is wholly erroneous, in stating that, Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC is also attracted.

3. We have perused the plaint in O.S. No.1692/06 and copies of documents filed by the plaintiffs, along with the plaint, in the Trial Court. After perusal of the pleading in the plaint, in our opinion, the plaint was rightly held to be liable to rejection, on the ground that, it does not disclose any cause of action in tenns of Clause (a) of Rule 11 Order VII CPC.

4. As per the plaint av