Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by defendants No. 2 to 5 for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurugram, whereby application (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1, had filed civil suit for declaration and temporary and permanent injunction on 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). In the said suit, the petitioners filed the present application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-2); to which the plaintiff filed reply dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner had sought rejection of the plaint primarily on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-4), the said application of the petitioners has been dismissed.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the petitioners' application as the plaint (Annexure P-1) discloses no cause of action whatsoever. It is submitted that the plaintiff had filed the suit claiming encroachment on rasta but had not placed on record any document which reflects the said rasta or the dimensions thereof. Even the suit land is not described in the plaint. It is further alleged that the plaintiff had filed the suit merely with a malafide intent to harass the petitioners.

4. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not complied with the mandatory provision of Order VII Rule 1 (e), (f), (i) & (j) of CPC as the plaintiff has not stated the facts constituting cause of action. The plaintiff has not even disclosed that the Court has jurisdiction. No statement of value of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of Courts fees have been disclosed. In this regard, Learned counsel refers to the application (Annexure P-2) as also to the pleadings in para 3 of the present petition wherein it has been averred that 'plaintiff has not complied with the mandatory provision of Order VII Rule 1 (e), (f), (i) & (j) of CPC, plaintiff has not stated the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, the fact showing that the court has jurisdiction, a statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of court fees, so far as the case admits, and statement to effect that any other suit is pending or not. All above facts are necessary to be given in the suit and as they have not been mentioned present suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII CPC. '

5. In support, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in ' A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. And another vs. A.P. Agencies Salem ' Law Finder Doc Id # 89281; wherein in para 12 thereof, it is held that 'a cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue.' It is accordingly submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioners.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants No.2 to 5 and perused the case file in great detail.

8. I find no merit whatsoever