A plaint must disclose a clear cause of action and right to sue; mere adverse entries in revenue records do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Admit.

2. Heard Mr. Dinesh Naik with Ms. Shruthi Arabekar for the Petitioner and Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe with Ms. Ashwini Bandekar for the Respondents.

3. The matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself with consent of the parties.

4. Mr. Dinesh Naik would submit that the plaint on the face of it is barred by limitation and also no clear right to sue for want of any actual cause of action. He submits that the plaint shows only illusory cause of action and thus it needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).

5. Mr. Naik would now submit that the suit is filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff would go to show that the Gift Deed mentioned therein is challenged which is of the year 1980. Similarly, survey records were promulgated somewhere in the year 1975 itself and there is no statement made in the plaint that there is any actual threat to the so-called claim of the Plaintiff. He submits that the plaint is filed for declaration of co- ownership for which a period of three years starts from the date of actual denial of right by the Defendants. He further submits that there is no such positive assertion made in the plaint which requires to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

6. Mr. Naik would then submit that the impugned order is contrary to the settled proposition of law and even though various Judgments were cited, same have been brushed aside without applying it to the matter in hand.

7. He would submit that paragraph 10 of the impugned order very casually observed that the Judgment cited by the Applicant were not applicable only on the premise that the plaint nowhere shows that the Plaintiffs were aware of the entries of the revenue records at the time of promulgation. This itself shows that the plaint is casually filed without giving proper details about the cause of action.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel Shri Bhobe appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and 6/Original Plaintiffs claimed that a meaningful reading of the plaint itself shows that the right of co-ownership is claimed and since the Plaintiffs obtained certified copies of the survey records somewhere in the year 2014, the suit is within limitation and not barred.

9. Rival contentions fall for consideration.

10. The applicant herein are the Defendants in the suit bearing number Regular Civil Suit No. 14/2014 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The said suit is titled as suit for declaration wherein relief claimed in the prayer clause reads thus:

(a) That the plaintiffs be kindly declared as co-owners of the suit properties bearing Survey Nos. 365/7, 368/12, 114/4, 108/18 and 370/4 along with the defendants.

(b) Any other order which deems fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court be kindly granted in favour of the Plaintiffs.

(c) Cost of the suit.

11. It therefore shows that the suit is simplicitor for declaration that the Plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit property along with the Defendants.

12. The Applicant filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. In the said application it is contention of the Applicants that on reading of the plaint, it appears that the Plaintiff does not have a clear right to sue and the suit is barred under the prevailing law. The plaint does not disclose cause of action and hence the plaint is ought to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

13. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed reply to the said application and objected to such prayer.

14. The learned Court by the impugned order rejected such application on the ground that the suit is not barred by limitation and that there is triable issue. The issues are already framed and can be decided only after the parties lead evidence to prove the same.

15. It is a settled proposition of law that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. can be filed at anytime and even after issues are framed. Thus, the contentions of the learned Trial Court that since issu