The crucial factor for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint, and disputed questions of fact require the trial court to take evidence of the parties.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs:

i) the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 (Annex.6) passed by Gramin Nyayalaya, Hanumangrh in Case No.10/2019 Anil Kumar vs. Balkishan & Anr. be quashed and set aside.

ii) the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners before the learned trial court may kindly be allowed as prayed.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent - plaintiff filed an application under Section 24 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act before the Gram Nyayalaya, Hanumangarh for permanent and mandatory injunction. The petitioner - defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no cause of action arises to the respondent - plaintiff. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner - defendant vide impugned order dated 11.04.2019. Being aggrieved of the same, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while praying for setting aside the impugned order, submits that the application filed by respondent - plaintiff Anil Kumar under Section 24 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act is liable to be dismissed being barred by law as per provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is also submitted that when the application was filed on 06.03.2019 before the Gram Nyayalaya, Hanumangarh, the respondent-plaintiff was in custody and therefore, he could not have signed the application nor he could he execute the affidavit in support of the application. It is also contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender of committing cheating, therefore, the application submitted by the respondent - defendant was beyond the jurisdiction and against the law and the same is liable to be dismissed. He also urged that the trial court has committed error by not allowing the application dated 26.03.2019 filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying therein that the application of the respondent - plaintiff deserves to be dismissed being barred by law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the grounds mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner dated 26.03.2019 is beyond the scope of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The grounds for rejection of the application pending before the trial court can be decided only after taking evidence of both the parties. Hence, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supported the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the trial court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

6. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, are the averments made in the plaint. For the purpose of deciding an application under Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. The basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or not.

7. A perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner-defendant before the trial court shows that he has sought the rejection of the application under Sec 24 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act on the ground that on 06.03.2019 when the application was filed by the respondent-plaintiff before the trial court, he (plaintiff) applicant was in judicial custody and the application and affidavit could not be signed by him. The respondent has not admitted this fact in his application filed before the trial court and as such it appears that disputed question of fact is involved in the present matter which requires to be decided by the trial court after taking evidence of the parties. The tri