A plaint must establish a clear cause of action; limitation issues involving mixed questions of fact and law cannot be decided without trial evidence.

ORDER :

M.Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioners - defendants in O.S.No.938/2021 is before this Court calling in question the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short).

2. Heard Shri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for Shri Rahul S. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M.B. Chandrachooda learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The first respondent - plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.938/2021 against the petitioners seeking a declaration to declare that the registered partition deed dated 29.08.2025 is now binding on the plaintiff and further seeks partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners enter appearance and file their written statement stating that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. After filing of the written statement, file an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the score that it is barred by limitation. The said application comes to be rejected. The rejection of which is called in question before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Shri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel takes this Court through the plaint averments to contend that there is no cause of action to have instituted the said suit in the light of the registered partition having come about long ago in terms of O.S.Nos.7398/1995 and 339/2012, which had ended in compromise. He would submit that the application ought to have been allowed, as the plaintiff has no right to seek partition of the property, which stood complete long ago.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - plaintiff would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the concerned Court as on cogent reasons rejected the application seeking rejection of the plaint. He would submit that the concerned Court clearly notices that for consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, what is to be looked into is the plaint averment. The plaint averments in the case at hand does disclose a cause of action. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pursued the available material on record.

7. The suit being for the aforesaid relief is a matter of record. the petitioners - defendant file application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The concerned Court rejects the application by the following order:

"16. Having regard to the Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the documents filed along with the plaint are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. When a document referred to in the plaint forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.

17. I would like to refer the decision reported in 2020 (7) Supreme Court cases, 366 in cases of Dahiben Vs - Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), Dead through Legal Representatives and others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 23.2 that:

"The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision."

The ratio mentioned in the above dictum is also applicable to the case in hand. Hence, this Court has to see the plaint averments and documents attached with the plaint and none other.

18. On perusal of the plaint and plaint documents, this Court did not find any reasons to reject the plaint