1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard the learned counsel for final hearing of the application.

2. The civil revision application arises out of the order dated 21st April, 2009, passed by the trial court refusing to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the same does not disclose cause of action and that it is barred by the law of Limitation.

3. Before adverting to the facts of the case it will be convenient to briefly refer to the decisions cited by both the sides as regards the extent of enquiry for the application under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code Mr.Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that while deciding the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code the court must read only the plaint without any addition or subtraction to it and the plaint must be read in its entirety presuming its contents to be correct. He seeks to draw support for his submission from the decisions of the Apex Court in Kamala and others ..vs.. K.T.Ishwarsa and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661 and C.Natarajan ..vs.. Ashimbai and others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 183. Mr.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the applicants, concedes to the argument as a general rule but submits that in a given case the court can also look into the documents referred in the plaint which are suppressed by the plaintiff but produced by the defendant. In this connection he relies upon decision of Single Judge of our High Court in Xavier Disuza and others ..vs.. Luis Disuza and others, reported 2009 (1) Bom.C.R. 250 (Panji Bench). In the facts of that case the learned trial judge being conscious of the fact that the court for rejection of the plaint under order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code was required to look into only the pleadings of the plaintiffs and was not required to look into the documents produced by the defendants had proceeded to hold that the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts of the pleadings and that the documents produced by the defendants supplied the omissions and therefore, the said documents produced by the defendants could be looked into. In the facts of that case, our High Court found that suppressing the dates of various documents referred to by the plaintiff was intentional and it was made to deceive the court and hence dismissed the challenge to the decision of the trial court in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11

(d) Civil Procedure Code. In the case on hand, though there are allegations of suppression of material facts and documents from the court, neither side has produced any document for perusal either of the trial court or this court. Therefore, the submission advanced by Mr.Deshpande as regards the extent of enquiry need not be further dilated upon.

4. By the suit herein, the respondent seeks decree of redemption of mortgage in respect of “suit 8 Acres disputed land out of the suit field” and for it’s possession. The facts as set out in the plaint in support of the reliefs as under Para no.1 of the plaint describes the suit property as land at Gat No.24, admeasuring 12 acres. Paragraph 2 describes the genealogical tree of both the sides. It further states that Champalal, father of the respondent, had looked after both, the person and the property of Khivraj, the ancestor of the applicants, who had allegedly renounced the world. The purpose of these averements is not known. The rest of the plaint contains no statement connecting to the averements.

5. In its subsequent paragraphs the plaint refers to documents of three sale-deeds and the gift-deed dated 22nd June, 1993, all executed in respect of the suit property. By the three sale-deeds, three portions of the suit property are alleged to have been sold to the respondent, his father Champalal and applicant no.3. The land sold to the respondent admeasures 4 Acres, that sold to Champalal admeasures 5 Acres and the