IMPORTANT POINT
A plaint must disclose a clear cause of action and cannot be based on clever drafting that creates an illusion of rights; if it is found to be vexatious or meritless, it should be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Lawande, who appears along with Mr. Jay Mathew and Mr. Chirag Angle for the Applicants, Mr. H.D. Naik appearing along with Mr. Aditya D. Naik for Respondent Nos. 2 to 24 and Mr. Pangam who appears along with Mr. Ajay Borkar and Mr. Parikshit Sawant for Respondent Nos. 25 and 26.

2. This matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself with the consent of all the parties.

3. The Applicants who are the original Defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 2014 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Quepem, preferred the present Revision thereby challenging the impugned order dtd. 26/4/2018, by which, the learned Trial Court rejected both the Applications [at Exhibits-21 and 27] filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint.

4. The original Defendant Nos. 1 to 16 filed an Application at Exhibit-21 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on two-fold grounds i.e. the plaint does not disclose the cause of action qua the Plaintiffs and that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The second Application at Exhibit-27 was filed by Defendant Nos. 17 to 20. The Plaintiffs filed a reply to both the Applications opposing it.

5. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court rejected both the Applications. Defendant Nos. 1 to 16 who filed the Application at Exhibit-21 challenged the impugned order whereas the other Defendants [Defendant Nos. 17 to 20] who appear in the present matter [Respondent Nos. 25 and 26] supported the contentions of the Applicants.

6. Learned Counsel Mr. Lawande appearing for the Applicants strongly contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider and read the plaint in a meaningful manner and came to the wrong conclusion. He submitted that the Plaintiffs by clever drafting created an illusory cause of action in their favour which in fact is not at all available to the Plaintiffs. In this respect Mr. Lawande would submit that the suit property which was the subject matter of the inventory proceedings vide item no. 9 was entirely allotted to Smt. Sumatibai alias Krishnabai, through whom Defendant Nos. 1 to 16 are claiming rights. This inventory proceedings concluded and was acted upon and there was no challenge raised by any interested parties over such allotment. He submitted that the property originally belonged to Mukund Sinai Nadkarni who had half share in the property bearing no. 3918 and that such entire half of the property no. 3918 belonging to Mukund Sinai Nadkarni was the subject matter of the inventory proceedings under item no. 9, which was exclusively allotted to Smt. Sumatibai, through whom Defendant nos. 1 to 16 claimed inheritance. Mr. Lawande would submit that by clever drafting, the Plaintiffs tried to confuse by claiming that half of the property of Mukund Sinai Nadkarni was put in the inventory proceedings whereas the remaining half devolved upon the Plaintiffs, which is absolutely incorrect to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and which could be established from the documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs in the plaint.

7. Mr. Lawande would then submit that the learned Trial Court observed in paragraphs 9 and 12 about some admitted facts. However, there are no such admitted facts even shown in the plaint or in the written statement. He further submitted that while deciding an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to only look into the plaint and the documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs. Thus, according to Mr. Lawande, such findings are perverse. He then claimed that there is some reference in paragraph 19 of the plaint regarding the relinquishment of the property by Smt. Sumatibai. However, the Plaintiffs have clearly avoided to mention that such relinquishment was only in respect of the share of the mother of Smt. Sumatibai, which devolved upon her after the first inventory was finalized. It is submitted that there is no relinquishment of shares by Smt. Sumatibai which she got/inherited through