JUDGMENT :

RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA, J.

1. The present First Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.06.2017, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (Senior Division), Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 122 of 2015, whereby the said suit, while hearing on the point of admission, has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff-appellant instituted the suit for declaration of title against the State of Bihar in respect of 21 acres 90 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 480 under Khata No. 284, situated at Mauja–Kasba, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land originally belonged to ex-landlord Surya Mohan Thakur, who settled the same in favour of Kedar Nath Joshi by Raiyati Kabuliyat (Hukumnama) dated 31.12.1925 and delivered possession, thereafter continuing to realise rent and grant rent receipts in his favour. It is further stated that at the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar, the ex-landlord submitted returns wherein the land was recorded in the name of the said raiyat, and accordingly the estate vested in the State. The plaintiffs further assert that having remained away from the locality when they visited the Anchal Office on 01.09.2015 for payment of arrears of rent they were informed by the Halka Karamchari that the jamabandi of the suit land stood recorded in the name of the Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, whereupon rent was refused and they were threatened with dispossession from the suit land.

3. The learned Sub-Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, while considering the plaint at the stage of admission in Title Suit No. 122/2015, rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.). The Court found that the plaintiffs’ claim of title and possession over the suit land was unsupported by reliable records. It observed that the certified copy of the return relied upon by the plaintiffs was a suspicious document and upon verification from the Collector, Bhagalpur, it was reported that no such return had been issued from that office. The court further noted discrepancies in the khata/khesra details and held that there was no rent receipt or document in the plaintiffs’ favour after vesting of the Zamindari indicating that they ever acquired possession over the suit land. The Court held the suit to be meritless and not fit to be admitted. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected with costs of ₹1,00,000/-, payable to the Legal Services Authority, Bhagalpur.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is wholly illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and perverse. It was contended that it is a settled principle of law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the Court is confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto and nothing beyond the same can be looked into. It was further argued that, at this stage, every statement made in the plaint is required to be treated as true and correct and the Court must proceed on that basis alone. Any dispute or controversy between the parties cannot be adjudicated at this stage and necessarily requires a full-fledged trial based on evidence adduced by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the direction contained in the impugned order imposing cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the Legal Services Authority, Bhaglapur is wholly arbitrary, excessive and unsustainable in law. It was contended that the power to award costs must be exercised judiciously, reasonably and upon sound legal principles and not in a punitive manner.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the concerned Court, while rejecting the plaint and refusing admission of the suit, has travelled beyond the scope and jurisdiction vested under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.