The court may reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) for failing to disclose a cause of action, particularly when there is suppression of material facts, demonstrating the importance of the clean hands principle.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Regular First Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order on I.A.No.III dated 24.01.2025 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere ('trial Court' for short) in O.S.No.104/2024.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.

3. We have heard Shri. Revanna Bellary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Shri. G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.5/defendant No.4.

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of the suit schedule property asserting that the plaintiff and the defendants are members of a joint family and that the property is joint family property, entitling the plaintiff to a 1/20^th share. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement contending that he is the adopted son of A.V. Rama Rao and Parvathi Bai, that A.V. Rama Rao died leaving defendant No.4 as a sole legal heir and that the plaintiff and the other defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Thereafter defendant No.4 filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it discloses no cause of action.

5. It was stated that the plaintiff intentionally and knowingly suppressed the existence of the Adoption Deed and instituted a suit for partition and separate possession on the false premise that A.V. Rama Rao died intestate. According to defendant No.4, by virtue of the Registered Adoption Deed, he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and since the plaint does not disclose any real cause of action, he sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The plaintiff contended that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint. The pleas raised by the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint on merits would be irrelevant and cannot be adverted to or taken into consideration. It was further contended that the Court may look only into the documents referred to or relied upon in the plaint and not into documents produced or relied upon by the defendant.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following point for consideration:-

"Whether defendant No.4 has made out ground to reject the plaint by invoking the provisions Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, for want of cause of action?"

8. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and was guilty of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation and therefore was not entitled to any relief. Relying upon the observation of the Apex Court, it was held that where a plaint does not disclose a cause of action or the suit is barred by law, the Court should not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. When a suit amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, being vexatious or meritless the power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be exercised.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the trial Court passed the impugned order on I.A.No.III without properly considering the objections filed by the appellant and erroneously relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court cited by defendant No.4, which were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The impugned order is perverse, unsustai