Point of Law
Once the plaintiffs who could not dispute the factual position and had already deposited the rent and continued to deposit rent in the SCC suit in favour of the defendants who have been substituted as landlords, they are prevented from taking this plea to state that there are two separae sets of person claiming and hence the requirement of an interpleader suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Samarth Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Ashish Chaturvedi for respondent no. 8.

2. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against a concurrent judgment and decree passed by the two courts whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been allowed rejecting the plaint of the appellants.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the two courts while rejecting the plaint in suit upon applying the provisions of Order Rule 11 C.P.C. has not considered the true import of Order 35 Rule 5 C.P.C. and has incorrectly applied the aforesaid provision in non-suiting the plaintiff which is a gross error of jurisdiction committed by the two courts, resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 is to be considered only on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint in suit. At the stage of such consideration, the Court cannot look into the written statement or the defence as raised by the defendants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that it is one thing to state that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and it is altogether different thing to urge that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action.

7. Elaborating his submission, it has been submitted that where on the meaningful reading of the plaint it does not disclose a cause of action, then the Court is then entitled to reject a plaint in terms of the Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., however, stating that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action, this necessarily would mandate the Court to consider the pleadings of the parties which necessarily involves looking into the written statement and only after the evidence is led can the Court reach such a conclusion that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action and this necessarily means that a plaint cannot be rejected as per Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. rather at best it would be a matter to be decided on merits.

8. It has been urged that the two courts have completely ignored the aforesaid distinction while rejecting the plaint and as such the appellant had suffered injustice.

9. It is also submitted that the two courts have not considered the provisions of Order 35 Rule 5 C.P.C. in the correct perspective and has rejected the plaint while all the ingredients required were clearly met and as such the plaint was very well maintainable which has erroneously been rejected.

10. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision in the case of Yeshwant Bhikaji Vilankar Vs. Sadashiv Govind Arekar and Others reported in 1940 ILR 842 and State of Orrissa Vs. Klockner and Company and Others reported in 1996 (8) SCC 377.

11. Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has appeared on caveat and opposed the aforesaid submission.

12. It has been submitted that the interpleader suit as filed by the appellants was clearly hit by Order 35 Rule 5 C.P.C. as well as the proviso appended to Section 88 C.P.C. It has also been submitted that the appellants are the tenants of the property in question against whom the eviction suits are pending since 1998, hence in order to delay and to avoid the eventuality the alleged interpleader suit has been filed only in the year 2015, coupled with the fact that the alleged plaint suffers from gross concealment, inasmuch as, there is not a mention regarding the eviction suits filed by the landlords against the appellants. It has also been submitted by Sri N.K. Seth, that in paragraph 11 there is just a passing reference relating to the cause of action, that a suit was filed for eviction in the year 2015 which has given the cause of action to the plaintiff to file the aforesaid suit which as per Sri Seth is deliberate misrepresentation a