A plaint should not be rejected merely on the ground that the averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein.

HARISH TANDON, J:

1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated November 23, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bongaon in Title Suit no. 159 of 2004 rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant no. 1/petitioner herein. Assailing the said order the present revisional application is filed by the defendant no. 1. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the trial court failed to consider that the plaint does not disclose any clear right to sue and is vexatious and harassive. In support of such contention Mr. Bhattacharya relies upon a judgment of the apex court reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 (T. Arivandandam vs. Satyapal & Anr.) Mr. Sudhis Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/ opposite parties submits that the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 is limited, unless the case comes within the ambit of such provision the court cannot reject the plaint. Mr. Dasgupta further submits that the court cannot look into any document/material except the plaint at the time of disposal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Dasgupta relies upon a judgment reported in (2004) 9 SCC 512 (Liverpool & London S.P.& I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr.) for the proposition that the plaint should not be rejected merely on the ground that the averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein.

Mr. Dasgupta strenuously argued that the court cannot reject a plaint unless it finds that the statement made in the plaint is barred by any law without any reasonable doubt or dispute and relies upon a judgment reported in (2005) 7 SCC 510 (Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association).

Mr. Dasgupta argued further that the petitioner has taken specific point in the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to non-compliance of a provision under Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is paced on a judgment reported in (2006) 2 SCC 777 (Vidyawati Gupta & Ors. Vs. Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors.) that the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code being procedural in nature and cannot be held to be mandatory but directory. The noncompliance of such procedural law does not entail the dismissal of a suit or rejection of a plaint.

Mr. Dasgupta further submits that in order to succeed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code the defendant/petitioner has to demonstrate before the court without any reasonable doubt that he has a very strong case in his favour and the said suit is frivolous, vexatious or harassive and there is no cause of action in law and in equity. In support thereof he relies upon a judgment reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100 (Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors.).

It is a settled law that the court shall not look into any other material or document except the plaint at the time of disposal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Taking into consideration such proposition it would be profitable to reproduce some of the relevant averments made by the opposite party in the plaint of the said suit :

“2. That the deceased father of the plaintiffs got an agency from IBP Company Limited to do the business of kerosene in the year 1969 and started business under the name and style “M/s. Sricharan Majumder & Sons” at Motiganj, P.O & P.S Bongaon, District North 24 Parganas and continued the same till his death on 29.4.1998. He died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants no. 1 and 2 and his widow and none else and after demise of their mother in the Jaistha 1407 B.S. and they became joint owners and/or legatees in respect of all the properties, moveable and immovables and the said business.

3. Thus, after the demise of father on 29.4.98 the plaintiffs became owners in equal one fourth