The plaint must disclose a cause of action, and the permissibility of oral averments contradicting a written document depends on the applicability of relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing an order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Trial Court, whereby application of the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. Petitioner herein is Defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the `Defendant') before the Trial Court and Respondent is the Plaintiff and parties hereinafter are referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

2. Present revision petition has its genesis in a suit filed by the Plaintiff against several Defendants seeking declaration/cancellation of the sale deed dated 11.06.2012 and for rendition of accounts along with permanent and mandatory injunction amongst other reliefs. Upon being served with the summons in the suit, Defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint. Reply was filed by the Plaintiff to the said application and by the impugned order the Trial Court had dismissed the application.

3. Grounds on which rejection of the plaint was sought by the Defendant before the Trial Court were: (a) no cause of action is made out in the plaint and the suit is predicated on manifestly vexatious and frivolous pleas; (b) sale deed in question is sought to be cancelled on the basis of flimsy and improbable pleas that Plaintiff was unaware of the contents of the sale deed despite the fact that the sale deed is a registered document and at about 29 places Plaintiff has appended his signatures and that being a practicing lawyer he knew or ought to have known and understood what he was signing on; (c) execution of the sale deed, thumb impression of the Plaintiff and signatures at various places on the sale deed as well as presence of the Plaintiff during execution of the sale deed in the office of Sub-Registrar are crucial facts which are not denied by the Plaintiff; and (d) no oral averments can be made or entertained to contradict the sale deed which is a written document, as that would be against the letter and spirit of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the `Evidence Act').

4. Plaintiff opposed the application and submitted that: (a) plaint by its plain reading discloses cause of action in favour of the Plaintiff and the cause set forth is not barred by any law; (b) fraud has been played upon the Plaintiff by the Defendant, who illegally and dishonestly with a view to usurp 50% of Plaintiff's share in the property bearing No. M-10, Green Park Extension, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property') made him sign on certain documents transferring title in his favour, without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff and without payment of sale consideration; (c) consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- allegedly paid to the Plaintiff is no where close to the valuation of the property and there was no reason for the Plaintiff to have agreed to part with his share for a meagre sum; and (d) case of the Plaintiff is covered under first proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act which provides that any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document or which would entitle any person to a decree or order relating thereto, such as fraud, intimidation, illegality etc.

5. The Trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the application in view of the law that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has to be adjudicated only in light of the averments in the plaint and pleas taken by the Defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant at that stage. Trial Court after examining the plaint has rendered a finding that the plaint, from a plain reading of the averments therein, discloses a cause of action inasmuch as specific averments have been made by the Plaintiff that fraud had been played on him by the Defendant, who was his old friend. It is averred that Plaintiff was not aware of the actual contents of the sale deed and learnt o