The main legal point established is that at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C., the court's jurisdiction is limited to ascertaining whether a cause of action is shown in the plaint, and the defendant's stand is immaterial at this stage.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

Heard learned counsel, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. Nagendra Rai, appearing for the respondents.

2. This civil revision application has been filed by defendant No.2-petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Judge-Ist, Chapra in T.S. No. 17 of 2015, whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C.

3. It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit claiming partition of ?rd share in the suit property. Admittedly, defendant No.2, the plaintiff and respondent No.2 are three own sisters. The suit has been filed for partition to the extent of ?rd share in the property of their father. It is alleged that the parties are joint and there had been no partition in the property.

4. The written statement has been filed by the defendant-petitioner contesting the suit alleging that there had already been partition between the parties and according to the partition, parties are in separate possession and prior to that mother had gifted the property orally to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of partition, again, arises.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground, mentioned in the application, which is annexure-4 to this civil revision application. The first ground for rejection of the plaint, according to this application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. is that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and the second ground for rejection of plaint is that the suit is barred by law. At the time of hearing of this application, the learned counsel, Mr. Mishra for the petitioner submitted that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, barred by law of limitation, barred by acquiescence and etc. etc. The learned counsel in support of his contentions relied upon various decision of either this Court or the Supreme Court, such as; (1) AIR 1972 SC 1685; (2) AIR 2010 Patna 189; (3) 2010 (1) PLJR 567; (4) 2010 (1) PLJR 569; (5) AIR 1998 SC 634; (6) 2002 (4) PLJR 90; (7) 2015 (4) SCC 371; (8) AIR 1991 Patna 1; (9) Air 2014 SC 937; (10) 1980 BLJ 429; (11) AIR 1977 SC 2421; (12) AIR 1973 SC 171; (13) AIR 1968 SC 808; (14) AIR 1987 SC 2328; (15) 1998 (9) SCC 719; (16) AIR 1927 Patna 286; (17) 1994 (1) PLJR 39 SC equal to AIR 1994 SC 853; (18) 1973 (2) SCC 60.

6. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that none of the decisions relied upon by the petitioner is applicable in the present case as the suit is a simple suit for partition and at the time of deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C., the only pleading in the plaint is to be gone into and not the statement in the written statement nor in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. is required to be gone into. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned court below has rightly rejected the application.

7. Perused the plaint, which is annexure-2. From perusal of the plaint, it appears that it is a simple suit for partition. The bundle of facts, entitling the plaintiff to claim partition has been stated in the plaint. So far the application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C., which is annexure-4, is concerned, it may be stated that the first ground is that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. The second ground is that the suit is barred by law i.e. Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. There is no specification in the application as to under which provision of law the suit is barred. Except the statement that the suit is barred by law, nothing is detailed therein.

8. Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. provides that the plaint can be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any