IMPORTANT POINT
A plaint must be rejected as a whole if it does not disclose a cause of action against any defendant; it cannot be partially rejected.

JUDGMENT :

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

2. Present revision has been filed with the following prayer:

“Hon’ble court may pleased to allowed this revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.05.2024 and its formal order dated 11.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge(S.D.), Aligarh in O.S. No. 308 of 2023 Ikram Khan Vs. Smt. Amreena and ors. With costs throughout and may further be pleased to pass any other order or orders, grant any other relief or reliefs and give directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances on the following amongst other grounds.”

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite party No. 1-plaintiff has filed Original Suit No. 308 of 2023 and from the perusal of the aforesaid plaint, no cause of action is made out against revisionist-defendant No. 5 IInd set, therefore, revisionist-defendant has filed application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC to reject the plaint, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.05.2024. He firmly submitted that once it is undisputed from the plaint that not a single word has been written against the revisionist-defendant, therefore, it is required for the court to reject the plaint, so far as it relates to revisionist-defendant. He next submitted that application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC has been filed on the ground that no cause of action has arose for filing of suit against revisionist-defendant and on this ground alone, plaint is liable to be rejected, but the court below has not returned any finding on this point and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC by the order impugned. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others: AIR 1998 SC 634, judgment of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Nandalal N. Verma And Co. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Mills(Leasee) Pvt. Ltd.: (1994) 2 CALLT 82 (HC) and judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of M.V. "Sea Success I" Vs. Liverpool And London Steamship: 2002(2) BOMCR537.

4. Per contra, Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 vehemently opposed the submission so made by the learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant and submitted that first of all application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC has not been filed for rejecting the plaint only in respect of revisionist-defendant, but it is for rejection of the whole plaint. He also pointed out that plaint may not be rejected in particular for one of the defendants only, either the plaint may be rejected as a whole or may not be rejected at all. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the matters of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr.: 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 870, Sejal Glass Ltd. vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1029, judgment of Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Balwant Singh Vs. The State Bank of India and others: AIR 1976 PUNJAB & HARYANA 316 FULL BENCH.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgments relied upon.

6. From the perusal of the plaint, it is found that there is no allegations against the revisionist-defendant (Punjab National Bank) and in light of there being no allegation, revisionist has filed application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC to reject the plaint. For ready reference Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is being quoted hereinbelow:

“11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;”

7. Learned Judge while deciding the application has rejected the same on the ground that from the perusal of the plaint, there