H.G. RAMESH, J.

1. Whether Order VII Rule 11 of CPC permits partial rejection of a plaint or a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected? This is the question of law that requires determination in this appeal. The question is answered by holding that a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected and partial rejection of a plaint is not permissible in law.

2. By consent of learned Counsel on both sides, the appeal is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment. This appeal is by the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the trial Court allowing IA No.37 filed by respondent No.1 (defendant No.23) under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by partly rejecting the plaint in the suit in OS No.8068/2011 in respect of suit schedule-H and J properties. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows :

“I.A.No.37 filed by defendant No.23 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is hereby allowed.

Plaint is rejected in respect of suit schedule-H property.

Suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in respect of suit schedule-H and J properties against the defendants 23 and 26 and subsequently, suit of the plaintiffs against the defendants 23 and 26 in respect of suit schedule-H and J properties is dismissed.

Under the facts and circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.”

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order of the trial Court in partly rejecting the plaint is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 2017 SC 4477] and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order by relying on a decision of this Court in Smt. Lakshmi and Others vs. Smt. Neelamma and Others [ILR 2015 KAR 5725] wherein this Court had rejected the plaint in respect of one of the suit properties. In other words, in the said case, this Court had partly rejected the plaint.

5. As already stated above, the question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether the trial Court is right in law in partly rejecting the plaint?

6. To answer the above question, it is relevant to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. (AIR 2017 SC 4477); it reads as follows :

“5. In our view, the impugned judgment is wrong on principle. Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as follows:

“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;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 :

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

What is important to remember is that the provision refers to the “plaint” which necessarily means the plaint as a whole. It is only where the plaint as a whole does not disclose a cause of action that Order VII, Rule 11 springs into being and interdicts a suit from proceeding.

6. It is settled-law that the plaint as a wh