Non-disclosure of the plaintiff's sale of the suit land before filing the suit did not warrant rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, as the relief sought and cause of action pleaded indicated ownership based on a registered sale deed.

M.R SHAH, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order/judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned 11thAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) below Exhs.22 and 26 in Special Civil Suit No. 139/2015, by which the learned trial Court has allowed the said application Exhs.22 and 26 preferred by the defendants and has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), the original plaintiff has preferred the present First Appeal.

2. That the original plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No. 139/2015 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat against the respondents herein - original defendants for a declaration to declare that pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2005 bearing registration No. 2759 with respect to the suit land, he become the actual owner and in occupation and possession of the same and to declare that except the plaintiff no other persons - defendants have any right, title or interest and to do anything with respect to the suit land and to declare that any act and/or transaction by any of the defendants in respect of the suit land be declared null and void.

3. The original plaintiff also prayed that Satakhat dated 02.07.2013 which was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Surat on 04.07.2013 bearing registration No. 715 executed by the original defendant Nos. 1 and 12 in favour of the defendant Nos. 13 and 14 be also declared as null and void and illegal and to declare that the original defendant Nos. 13 and 14 have not got any right, title or interest in the suit land pursuant to the said Satakhat. The original plaintiff also prayed to quash and set aside the registered sale deed dated 30.12.2014 bearing registration No. 1243/2014 registered with Sub-Registrar, Suart executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 12 in favour of defendant No. 15. The original plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from transferring, alienating the suit land in any manner whatsoever and also further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. That the said suit was filed on 04.03.2005

4. Having been served with the notice/summons of the suit, the original defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 12 submitted the application Exh.22 requesting to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC submitting that before filing the suit the plaintiff has sold the suit land by plotting the same in small plots by different 8 documents/sale deeds between 2006 to 2014 which are produced along with the list at mark 8 to 15. It was submitted that aforesaid facts have not been disclosed by the plaintiff in the suit and there was suppression of material fact. It was submitted that therefore, when the plaintiff instituted the suit, he ceases to be the owner and/or in occupation and possession of the suit land pursuant to the so-called document of 2005. It was submitted that therefore at the time of institution of the suit the plaintiff had no cause of action and therefore, the plaint is required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The original defendant No. 5 also filed similar application at Exh.26 and requested to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the cpc.

5. That by impugned order the learned trial Court has allowed the applications Exh.22 and 26 and has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC by observing that prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff had already sold the suit land after getting it plotted by registered sale deeds and therefore, at the time of filing of the suit, he was not the owner and/or he had no ownership right in the suit property and that he has suppressed the fact in the plaint and had not disclosed that he had already sold the suit land.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the im