The rejection of a plaint should only occur in exceptional circumstances, and the truthfulness of facts should be judged at the trial stage, not at the rejection stage.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon whereby application for rejection of plaint filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") has been declined.

2. It has been averred in the petition that suit No. 684/1996-97 "Vinod Khurana v. Rajesh Grover and others" was filed on 5.12.1996. The reliefs claimed in the said suit were:

(a) The agreement to sell dated 18.10.1996 in respect of the suit property should remain to subsist till the defendants (petitioner herein) complete the statutory obligation.

(b) A decree for mandatory injunction be also passed directing the defendants to obtain income tax clearance or to sign requisite papers to get the income tax clearance under Section 230-A(i) of Income Tax Act.

(c) to get the property in dispute mutated in their name.

(d) a decree for permanent injunction be issued against the defendants (petitioner herein).

3. The plaintiff in the said filed an application for amendment of plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code claiming relief of damages of Rs. 16 lacs and/or its set off from the remaining balance of sale consideration. The said application was filed on 10.3.1997.

4. It is not in dispute that previous suit No. 684/1996-97 was got dismissed as withdrawn without seeking any liberty from the Court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

5. It has further been averred in the petition that during the pendency of earlier suit, the present suit for recovery of- Rs. 8,84,000/- was filed on 17.2.2000 based upon the agreement to sell dated 18.10.1996 in respect of the same property i.e. House No. K-7/42 situated in DLF Qutab Enclave Complex, Phase II, Gurgaon.

6. It had been pleaded in the present suit that the defendant had undertaken to obtain income tax clearance certificate. It had further been pleaded that since the defendants broke the agreement by their own act and conduct and failed to obtain income tax clearance certificate in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had become legally entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum paid by Vinod Khurana vide agreement to sell dated 18.10.1996. From the said pleadings, it was observed that plaint itself discloses fresh cause of action to maintain the present suit.

7. Petitioner-defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule II of the Code for the rejection of the plaint/Rejection of the plaint had been sought on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any fresh cause of action to maintain the present suit and the relief claimed by the plaintiff-respondents was available to them when the civil suit titled as "Vinod Khurana v. Rajesh Graver and Ors." was pending in the Court of Shri Vijay Singh, Civil Judge, Gurgaon and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn without seeking liberty to institute a fresh suit. The further ground is that the plaintiff-respondents intentionally relinquished and omitted to sue in respect of the relief prayed for in the present suit and the same is barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code and that the relief claimed by the plaintiff-respondents is also barred by period of limitation. It was requested that the plaint be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code.

8. The defendant-petitioner in view of the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code has prayed that the plaint in the present suit should be rejected.

9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code reads thus:

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 under valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, f