A cause of action is established by a bundle of facts requiring evidence, and cannot be dismissed merely on preliminary objections without a trial.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No.240 of 2024 arising out of Original Suit No.298 of 2023 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected by the learned court.

3. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 05.07.2023 the plaintiff/opposite party has instituted a suit being Original Suit No.298 of 2023, inter alia, for a decree of specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.2017 for sale of the unit land with a direction upon the defendant/ petitioner to execute and register deed of sale in favour of the opposite party upon receipt of the balance consideration money and expenses, if any. He submits that the plaintiff/ opposite party has disclosed in the plaint inter alia the land appertaining to plot no.340 under Khata no.281 measuring an area of 58 decimals, 99 decimals of plot no.355, 21 decimals of plot no.722 and 3 decimals of plot no.776, total area of 1.81 acres stood in the name of Shivcharan Gossin and Gurucharan Gosain who died issueless. Thereafter the ex-land lord settled the said land in favour of Lakhiram Kumhar vide Hukumnama dated 29.8.1950 and recognized him as a raiyat. Lakhiram Kumhar applied for mutation and his name was mutated. He died leaving behind Yogeshwar Kumhar and Jainath Kumhar. Yogeshwasr Kumhar died leaving behind the defendant/petitioner, whereas, Jainath Kumhar died issueless. He submits that the plaintiff opposite party agreed to sell 99 decimals of land appertaining to plot no.355 under Khata no.281 and accordingly, plaintiff/ opposite party paid an advance of Rs.11000/- at the time of execution of agreement dated 15.2.2017 and thereafter he paid Rs.2,56,000/- on different occasions endorsing the same in the agreement but the defendant/petitioner evaded to execute the sale deed. He submits that it was alleged that the defendant/ petitioner has also received a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 25.2.2023. Accordingly, the plaintiff/ opposite party sent a legal notice on 6.2.2023 but the defendant/ petitioner responded the said legal notice stating that the agreement in question is a false and fabricated document. He submits in this background on receiving the summon the petitioner herein has appeared and filed written statement and petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which has been rejected by the learned court. He submits that the suit was barred by limitation and cause of action was not clearly disclosed in the plaint and in view of that the said petition was filed, however, the learned court has rejected the same on erroneous ground. He submits that the case of the petitioner is covered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Sajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 . On this ground he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

4. Annexure-3 is a document which is the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner. In para-4 the grounds have been taken that the agreement is a manufactured document and in para-5 further it is stated that the said document is a forged document and if such a ground is there, the question remains as to whether in absence of any evidence to be made by either of the parties merely by filing of the said petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be allowed or not? If such a situation is there that is required to be proved in the trial as the allegations are made that the document i