1. This first appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a suit for declaration, cancellation of the Patta and Gift Deed and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent, wherein it was stated that the plot Nos.12 & 13 admeasuring 256 square yards, Kailashpuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur were purchased by the plaintiff and Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma jointly, but late Pawan Kumar Sharma got the lease deed of the plot issued in the name of defendant No.4. The lease deed was transferred subsequently in the name of defendant No.3 through a gift deed. This fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff when late Shri Pawan Kumar filed a written statement in another suit.

3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant-respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since the relief sought for by the plaintiff for cancellation of lease deed dated 23.02.2002 and registered gift deed dated 30.03.2005 through a suit which was filed on 07.01.2013, the suit was barred by limitation. The relief of declaration has been sought after a period of 10 years from the date of expiry of the period of limitation. It is also alleged in the application that the plaintiff has no right or authority to institute the present suit as it discloses no cause of action. Since plaintiff has not filed any document in support of the plaint, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

4. The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a reply to the said application.

5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court allowed the application by impugned order and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

6. Hence, this first appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kapil Gupta, that the learned trial court wrongly rejected the plaint on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action. Cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. The learned trial court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of non filing of document. The learned trial court has failed to consider and appreciate the fact that it was specifically pleaded in the plaint that the disputed property was purchased by the plaintiff and late Pawan Kumar Sharma jointly. A written document was executed by Shri Pawan Kumar in this regard and the same was handed over to the appellant-plaintiff. It was specifically pleaded that cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff on disclosing the fact of issuance of Patta and execution of gift deed by the defendants in the written statement filed in the suit for permanent injunction.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, Shri K N Sharma, has supported the impugned order.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

11. It is trite that in deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court has to look into the averments contained in the plaint in totality and the documents filed in support of the plaint. At this stage, the defence raised by the defendant in the written statement is immaterial. For this purpose, the court has to scrutinise the plaint averments in a meaningful manner. To come to the conclusion whether or not cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint, the hair-splitting technicalities should be avoided and intention of the plaintiff should be gathered from the tenor and the terms of the pleadings in totality.

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004) 3 SCC 137, after taking into considerat