IMPORTANT POINT
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) for lack of cause of action, even without a defendant's application, if the plaintiffs have no valid claim to relief.

JUDGMENT :

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

This is an appeal against the order dated 02.12.2016 in O.S.No.301/2008 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru holding the suit not maintainable and rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC.

2. Shorn of details, the case of the plaintiffs is like this:

One Chikkayallappa was the propositus of the joint family. He had three sons and a daughter by name M.C. Somakka. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of M.C. Somakka. Chikkayallappa died in the year 1915 and M.C. Somakka died on 24.09.1990, at the age of 77 years. The defendants are the legal heirs of the sons of Chikkayallappa. The plaintiffs claimed partition in the plaint schedule property bearing Municipal Door Nos.222, 223, 224, 232 and 592 situate at Mandi Mohalla, Sayyaji Road, Mysuru, stating that the said property belonged to the joint family and they too have a legitimate share in it. Defendants No.23 to 25 are the persons in whose name the suit property stood at the time when the suit was filed.

3. The defendants No.24 and 25 filed written statement denying the right of Somakka to inherit the property and thereby the right of the plaintiffs to claim the property. They also pleaded that the suit was time barred.

4. The trial court framed issues. Plaintiff No.1 adduced evidence as PW1. On the day when PW1 was to be cross examined, defendant No.24 filed an application as per I.A.No.15 under Section 151 of CPC to try additional issue No.4 as preliminary issue. This additional issue No.4 pertains to valuation of the suit property and payment of court fee. While deciding I.A.No.15, the trial court judge read the plaint and entertaining a doubt that there was no cause of action for the suit, directed the plaintiffs’ advocate to argue on that point. After hearing, the trial court came to conclusion that there was no cause of action for the suit and hence rejected the plaint exercising its power under Order VII Rule 11( a) of CPC.

5. Assailing the order of the trial court, the argument of Sri Krishnamurthy G. Hasyagar, learned advocate for the appellant is that the trial court, having framed the issues and commenced recording of evidence, should not have proceeded under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. Elaborating, he argues that in the given set of circumstances, the maintainability of the suit depended on factual aspects which can only be decided after the oral evidence is recorded. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Klockner and Company and others, AIR 1996 SC 2140, of the Division Bench of this court in Mr. Jagadish Poonja vs. The South Canara Hotel Complex Pvt. Ltd. and others, ILR 2016 KAR 31 and of the Kerala High Court in Anil Kumar vs. Smt. Vijayalakshmi M V and another, AIR 2007 Kerala 123. His another submission is that the trial court should not have proceeded to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without an application being filed by the defendants, and therefore the appeal is to be allowed and matter remanded to trial court for decision on merits.

6. Sri S.R. Kamalacharan, learned counsel for respondents No.23, 25 and GPA holder of respondent No.24 argued for sustaining the order of the trial court by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs, (2020) 16 SCC 601.

7. Having heard both sides, it can be stated at the outset that there is no legal infirmity in the order impugned in this appeal. Order VII Rule 11 is a provision in CPC which empowers the court to reject the plaint at any stage of the proceeding for various reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (f). Very often clauses (a) and ( d) are invoked for rejection of plaint. It is not incorrect to state that it is the duty of the court to reject the plaint the moment it finds that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, or from a statement made in the plaint, the sui