The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the pleadings in the plaint as a whole and not relying on external aids, and the distinction between absence of cause of action and non-disclosure of cause of action.

Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. This Civil Revision Application challenges the legality and correctness of the order passed on 27th April, 2015 in Special Civil Suit No.34/2011/A by Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim.

3. The facts leading to filing of this Revision application may be stated in brief as under:

a) The respondent is the original plaintiff who had filed a civil suit against the petitioner, which is the original defendant no.2. The suit claims reliefs of payment of damages of Rs.25.00 lakhs and also injunctions, both permanent and mandatory against all the defendants. Original defendants nos.1, 3 and 4 have not been impleaded as parties to this application, as the relief claimed in this application is only against the respondent.

b) It is the case of the respondent that he is a co-owner of an undivided property, surveyed under no.24/2011 of village Pissurelem Village, hereinafter referred to as the suit property. The present petitioner as well as the original defendant nos.3 and 4, acting under permission from the original defendant no.1 to operate the mining concession, by dumping mining rejects on the suit property indiscriminately, illegally and without any permission and authority obtained from the respondent, have rendered fertile land of the suit property fallow and un-cultivatable and thereby caused huge loss to the respondent. Respondent has claimed that some time in the past, when he had taken up this matter with the petitioner, the dumping of mining rejects was stopped but his request for settling the issue was neglected. The respondent has further claimed that he had sent a notice dated 28/4/1998 to all the defendants including the petitioner calling upon them to stop further dumping of the mining rejects, but to no avail. He has also claimed that these illegal activities of the petitioner and other defendants are going on and the mining rejects dumped earlier on the suit property, continue to lie there rendering the land of the suit property as useless for its meaningful use. He has submitted that big heaps of the mining rejects contain silica and iron ore rich clay and these elements being harmful to soil, cause destruction of the soil texture by finding their way into it and then land is rendered fallow. As the defendants including the petitioner refused to make amends to their illegal activities, the respondent says, he filed a civil suit for damages and injunction.

c) The petitioner as the first step towards resistance of the suit, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and that there has been no cause of action disclosed in the plaint.

d) This application came to be rejected by the learned Civil Judge after hearing both sides by the order passed on 27/4/2015. It is this order which is under challenge in the present civil revision application.

4. Mr. V. Lawande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary as well as perverse as it does not take into account pleadings in the plaint which are so clear as to unequivocally indicate that the plaint is barred by law of limitation. He submits that the learned Civil Judge has also ignored the settled principles of law in passing the impugned order. He submits that the learned Civil Judge has observed, albeit erroneously, that the application of the petitioner is vague, that it did not give necessary details to show as to how the Court lacked jurisdiction and how no cause of action has been disclosed although written statements giving all these details were filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the learned Civil Judge has only referred to various case laws relied upon by the petitioner but failed to apply their principles, which principles as a matter of fact, were squarely applicable to the facts of the case.

5. Learned coun