The court affirmed that only the plaint's averments are to be considered in an application under Order 7 Rule 11, ruling that the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action and other objections did not warrant rejection.

ORDER :

MANEESH SHARMA, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Civil Suit No.464/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner, claiming possession on the basis of the letter dated 20.11.2017, and sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner. In the plaint, it was narrated that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is in lawful possession of the suit property and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is bent upon forcefully dispossessing him. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the cause of action accrued on 05.09.2025, the date on which defendant No. 1/petitioner allegedly vandalized the suit property and attempted to forcibly evict the plaintiff therefrom.

3. After service upon the defendants, the defendant No.1/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC, and sought rejection of the plaint inter alia on the grounds that: the suit is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('SRA, 1963'), there is non-joinder/ misjoinder of necessary parties, the suit is undervalued and the plaintiff has paid insufficient Court fee, the suit is frivolous/vexatious in nature, the suit does not disclose any cause of action, and the suit is barred by limitation.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff/Respondent No.1 chose not to file a written reply to the application, opting instead to advance oral arguments. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 vehemently contested the said application while submitting that the alleged grounds for rejection of the plaint are baseless. Further, it was argued that the suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation and clearly disclosed a valid cause of action. It was further argued that the objections regarding misjoinder or non-joinder of parties fall outside the scope of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC; it was therefore asserted that the defendant No.1/petitioner's application sans merit, and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, dismissed the \ defendant No. 1/petitioner's application, while observing that, when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments made in the plaint, and not venture beyond the plaint, and that the grounds of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are not attracted in the instant case.

6. Being aggrieved of which, the defendant No.1/petitioner preferred the present revision petition.

7. It is apt to reproduce the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as under:

"11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from t