A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it discloses a valid cause of action, irrespective of claims of vexatiousness or absence of declaratory relief.

ORDER :

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer) in Civil Suit No. 512/2025 titled as Kamla Devi and Ors. vs. Rajnarayan and Ors. whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), has been rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present civil revision petition are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, pleading that Sh. Dulichand (father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and paternal grandfather of respondent Nos. 2 to 4) obtained a Patta dated 09.05.1965 from the Gram Panchayat, Goner, for land situated at 52, Dukaano Ke Peeche, Dus Ki Dhaani, Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, measuring 44 x 39 feet (totaling 191 square yards).

3. It was stated in the plaint that after the death of Sh. Dhulichand, the rightful owners of the disputed plot of land, were the sons, i.e., Jagdish and Prahlad, who, being first-class heirs, were vested with equal 1/2 shares in the disputed plot. Thereafter, the two sons, i.e., Jagdish and Prahlad, divided the disputed plot into two halves and enjoyed peaceful possession thereof.

4. The plaintiffs/respondents also claimed possession thereof and asserted that the suit property is an ancestral property belonging to the plaintiffs/respondents and the deceased-Ramesh. It was further pleaded that after the death of Jagdish, the other son, i.e., Prahlad sold his half of the disputed plot to the petitioner (defendant No.1) and the legal heirs of Jagdish (the plaintiffs/respondents and the deceased-Ramesh) held a 1/5th share in the said property. It was further pleaded that Ramesh sold his 1/5th share to the petitioner (defendant No. 1), bordering the part he had already purchased.

5. It was further pleaded that the petitioner (defendant No.1) regularly attempted to encroach upon the plaintiffs/respondents' remaining share in the disputed property and threatened to dispossess them thereof, and prayed for a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction.

6. Upon service of notice to the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 on 09.12.2025, raising various objections inter alia that: the suit was barred by limitation, the plaintiffs/respondents had no locus standi, there was a non-joinder of necessary parties, there was a discrepancy in the description of the property, the suit is not maintainable being a simplicitor suit for injunction which neither seeks a declaration nor a partition of the undivided suit property and that the suit was filed without any cause of action without there being any proof of ownership of the disputed property.

7. The application was contested by the respondents/plaintiffs by filing a detailed reply dated 22.12.2025, wherein they refuted the petitioner's averments and claims, and asserted the averments made in the plaint, stating that the plaint discloses valid cause of action and cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It was also narrated in the reply to the said application that: the learned Trial Court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear the suit, the allegation leveled viz non-joinder of necessary parties is fallacious as the plaintiffs/respondents have impleaded the parties against which effective and complete relief can be granted, there was a bona fide cause of action disclosed in the plaint, i.e., the threat of the petitione