Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Tewari, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant assisted by Sri Apporva Tewari and Sri Paavan Awasthi, Advocates and Sri N.K. Seth, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondents assisted by Sri Rakesh Krishna, Advocate.

2. Under appeal is the order dated 27.10.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 2003 of 2018. By means of the order under appeal dated 27.10.2018, the learned Court below decided the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised by the defendant/respondent through application dated 22.10.2018, under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC"), and held that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and return the plaint of Regular Suit No. 2003 of 2018 to the appellant/plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 10 of CPC.

3. The submission of Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant while assailing the order dated 27.10.2018 is to the effect that the Trial Court erred in law in relying upon the assertions made by the respondent/defendant as the same is impermissible in law, keeping in view the principles settled while dealing with the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.

4. According to the principles settled, the plaint and averment therin has to be seen while considering the objection under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1. Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others: (2013) Supreme Court Cases 398.

2. Exphar SA and another v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and another: (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 688.

3. Ramesh B. Desai and others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others: (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 638.

4. Satti Pardesi Samadhi and Pillayar Temple v. M. Sankuntala (dead) through Legal Representatives and others: (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 674.

5.Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2018 (Chhotanben and another v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and others).

5. In the judgments placed before us by counsel for appellant, the principle settled is to the effect that while considering the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the averments made in the plaint alone have to be seen and it is not permissible to look into the pleas raised in the written statement or to any piece of evidence relied upon by the defendant and an issue including requiring inquiry into the facts cannot be treated as preliminary issue.

6. There is no dispute on the principle settled with respect to dealing with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which is to the effect that the plea raised by the defendant in the written statement or evidence placed by the defendant is not liable to be considered at the time of deciding of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

7. The facts of the present case, in brief, are as under:-

8. The appellant/plaintiff filed a plaint/suit for permanent injunction with respect to plot bearing Khasra No. 115 Jarnailganj, Lucknow and Khasra No.19 Rajjabganj, Lucknow, in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. The said suit was registered as regular Suit No. 2003 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow and notices were issued to the defendants/respondents and with regard to cause of action and territorial jurisdication, the necessary averments have been made in para 34 of the plaint. Relevant part of para 34 of the plaint is quoted below:-

"The cause of action has accrued to the Plaintiff against the defendants within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."

9. In the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiff is recorded tenure holder of Khasra No. 115 Jarnailganj, Lucknow and Khasra No.19 Rajjabganj, Lucknow, as detailed in Para 1 of the plaint. It is also evident from the contents of the plaint and document(s) on record that the basis of the suit is registered sale deed dated 17.07.1962 (executed on 15.06.1962) as on the basis of the sai