Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.(Oral) - Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure P3), passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Gurgaon, whereby the application of the petitioner-defendants has been dismissed on the ground that a prima facie cause of action is made out in the suit. The plea taken by the defendants for rejection as to whether the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction under the Rent Act or that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction, was a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, at this stage, the defence raised by the defendants, cannot be taken into consideration.

2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit was filed on 09.06.2007, for possession in the property in dispute and thereafter, on account of the constitution of the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon on 02.06.2008, the area had come under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and therefore, the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to try the suit for possession by way of recovery of proceedings.

3. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the order and submitted that the case is at initial stage and the Trial Court was well justified in dismissing the application since as per the pleadings in the plaint itself, the cause of action had accrued and there was no bar from the averments/pleadings in the plaint by which the suit can be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is also submitted that it is a matter of dispute as to when the construction of the property started and was completed.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no fault can be found in the order passed by the Civil Court. It is settled principle that rejection of plaint is not to be done at the outset and the same should be done in exceptional cases, at the threshold as it entails serious consequences and only where cases are patently time barred, frivolous and vexatious claims are put forth, resort is to be made to the said provisions. Reliance can be placed upon Rajesh Grover Vs. Smt. Rita Khurana & others, [2005(4) Law Herald (P&H) 587] : 2006 (2) PLR 244 for the said purpose. At the time of rejection of the plaint, only the plaint is to be seen and the defence of the defendants is not to be taken into consideration. Reference can be made to Popat & Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association 2005 (7) SCC 510 wherein it has been held as under:

“17. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs sought for in the suit as quoted supra have to be considered. The real object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits. Therefore, the Order 10 of the Code is a tool in the hands of the Courts by resorting to which and by searching examination of the party in case the Court is prima facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the court in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.”

5. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman Vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, [2012(4) Law Herald (SC) 3387] : 2012 (8) SCC 706, the principles regarding rejection of plaint were considered and it was held that it was the duty of the Court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint and the written statement is not to be taken into consideration to see whether the case falls within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11. Relevant observations read as under:

“It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the Court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the Court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fail