The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected at the initial stage if it demonstrates a cause of action, emphasizing the need for a full trial.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff who is aggrieved by the Order dated 17.12.2022 passed in O.S.No.639/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a)to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. The learned Judge has entertained the said application and rejected the plaint which is now assailed before this Court.

3. For the sake of brevity, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and, consequently, prays for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his associates from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant, in collusion with certain revenue officials, has fabricated documents, including a purported Sale Deed dated 06.07.2021. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant has concocted a false Partition Deed dated 01.04.1989, falsely claiming that the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather.

5. On receipt of summons, defendant tendered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. The learned Judge has entertained the application and rejected the plaint, which is now under challenge.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the plaint without properly examining whether the defendant had made out any of the grounds contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He contended that the learned Judge, instead of restricting the inquiry to the averments in the plaint, has relied upon the assertions made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11, and on that basis, has proceeded to reject the plaint. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is perverse and warrants interference by this Court.

8. Per contra, Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant, supported the impugned order and submitted that the rejection of the plaint was fully justified. He pointed out that the plaintiff himself has admitted in the plaint that the partition allegedly took place nearly 100 years ago and, in the absence of a clear and specific pleading with regard to the cause of action, the learned Judge was right in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. He placed strong reliance on paragraph 5 of the plaint to contend that no cause of action is disclosed, and therefore, urged this Court not to grant any indulgence to the appellant.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/defendant, and upon perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, this Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In light of the same, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether