IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a plaint must disclose a cause of action based solely on its averments, and issues of fraud can only be determined after evidence is presented.

ORDER :

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Heard on admission.

2. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 16.02.2023 passed in Case No.6v/2022 by the First Upper District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G) whereby, the application preferred by the applicant/defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the CPC has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for the specific performance of agreement to sale dated 15.07.2019 and the suit was filed on 01.07.2022. In the said suit, the applicant/defendants have moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the CPC, raising the objection that defendant No.1 along with Kausar Jahan and Aftab Alam had already entered into registered agreement and the same was in existence. Subsequently in a fraudulent manner, on 15.07.2019, an agreement was executed and the present suit was filed which was barred by law.

4. Learned trial Court considering the averments made in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC has observed that the issue involved in the case is a matter of evidence and the fact whether any fraud has been committed or not can be determined only after recording the evidence and dismissed the application. Hence, this Revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that during existence of the earlier agreement, the subsequent agreement is void and it is also obtained through deception and fraud and the learned trial Court has not considered this aspect and prays to allow the revision and reject the plaint which was barred by law.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the documents annexed with the revision carefully.

7. It is well settled that for determining whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not, the Court has to see only the averments in the plaint and the accompanying document relied upon in the plaint and the fact elicited from the plaintiff by examining him under Order 10. The Court has to presume the fact stated in the plaint as correct. The Court cannot look into the defence set up by the defendant in their written statement or the application while deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

8. Further, in the matter of Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal, (2017) 5 SCC 345, the following observations was made in para No.9 to 12:-

"9. Thus, for an enquiry under Order 7, Rule 11 (a), only the pleadings of the plaintiff-petitioner can be looked into even if it is at the stage of trial of preliminary issues under Order 14, Rule 2 (2). But the entire pleadings on both sides can be looked into under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) to see whether the court has jurisdiction and whether there is a bar for entertaining the suit.

10. In the present case, the issue relates to an enquiry under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Code, and hence, there is no question of a preliminary issue being tried under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of the Code. The court exercised its jurisdiction only under Section 83(1)(a) of the Act read with Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Code. Since the scope of the enquiry at that stage has to be limited only to the pleadings of the plaintiff, neither the written statement nor the averments, if any, filed by the opposite party for rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Code or any other pleadings of the respondents can be considered for that purpose.

11. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100, this Court has dealt with a similar issue. To the extent relevant, para 12 reads as follows: (SCC p.115)

"12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the court exercising the powers u