The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court must consider only the averments made in the plaint and accompanying documents, and the mere fact that the plaintiff may not succeed is not a ground for rejection.

Jayant Nath, J.

1. This revision petition is filed under section 115 CPC seeking to impugn the order dated 21.4.2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has filed the present suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. She has sought a decree of declaration declaring that she/plaintiff is the biological and natural born daughter of defendant No.1 and 2, namely, the petitioner and respondent No.2. Other connected reliefs are also sought. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 is a former naval officer who is an established successful business man. He in 1991 was staying in UK for the purpose of developing business contacts and to gain NRI status. Defendant No.2 was married to Mr. Anil Mehta on 2.2.1977 and had a daughter Ms. Gaurika Mehta out of their wedlock. It is stated that their relationship was strained due to various reasons and the two were staying on different floors since 1986-87. It is also stated that the defendants met at various gatherings and developed intimate relationship. The plaintiff was born on 29.4.1993 in London. She was named Devika Mehta using the surname of Mr. Anil Mehta the husband of defendant No.2. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No.2 sometimes in June 2011 informed her about her parentage, namely, that her biological father was defendant No.1 and not Mr. Anil Mehta. It is pleaded that initially when confronted defendant No.1 accepted the said position. The plaintiff thereafter sought to have her official records corrected. She was advised from a solicitor firm in UK that the process would require a DNA test report of defendant No.1 for change of name of a parent in the General Register of England. The plaintiff was unable to contact defendant No.1. Hence a communication from her Solicitor dated 23.7.2012 was sent to defendant No.1 seeking the blood sample for the DNA test. Defendant No.1 vide his reply dated 29.7.2012 denied the fact that he was the father of the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff in 2013 filed an Indigent Person Application being IPA 48/2013 before this court. The said IPA No.48/2013 was withdrawn with liberty to take appropriate legal remedy by order dated 24.4.2015. It is pleaded that exercising the said liberty granted by this Hon’ble court the present suit has been filed.

3. Defendant No.1/petitioner filed the present application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 9, Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. It was pleaded in the application that the plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the courts of UK and has thereafter filed a petition before this court. That petition was withdrawn. Now again, a fresh suit has been filed. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is guilty of forum shopping.

It is also pleaded that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit. Reliance is placed on the notice sent by the Solicitor of the plaintiff on 23.7.2012 which was addressed to defendant No.1 at Dubai. Hence, it is pleaded that defendant No.1 is even as per the plaintiff a resident of Dubai, UAE and hence this court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.

It is also further submitted that the suit is barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of three years.

4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court has rejected the contentions and pleas raised by defendant No.1. On the issue of limitation the trial court noted that limitation is to be reckoned from the date of defendant No.1’s refusal which is the email denying the case of the plaintiff issued on 29.07.2012. As the present suit was filed on 29.7.2015 the court came to the conclusion that the suit is filed within the limitation period. On the plea of the defendant No.1 regarding territorial jurisdiction of this court the trial c