ORDER

1. This first appeal under section 96 of C.P.C. has been filed against order dated 5.11.2015 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2010 by which an application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 7 rule 11 CPC has been allowed and plaint filed by appellant, has been rejected.

2. Since, the controversy revolves in a very narrow campus, therefore, it is not necessary to dwell upon the factual matrix in detail.

3. It is suffice to mention here that plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidences were also recorded and documents were also exhibited. At that stage, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC.

4. The trial Court by impugned order has allowed the application filed under Order 7 rule 11 CPC and has held that in view of compromise decree drawn in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2011 on 11.3.2011, plaint is liable to be rejected.

5. Challenging the order passed by Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that it is true that an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage, but the scope of interference would remain limited one. Even if, an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC is filed after the evidence is recorded, still the trial Court cannot look into any material other than plaint averments and documents filed alongwith plaint. The suit was filed by appellant on 21.8.2007. Compromise decree in civil suit No.11-A/2011 was drawn on 11.3.2011, i.e. during the pendency of present suit. The compromise decree dated 11.3.2011 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Gwalior to the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.11-A/2011 was filed by defendants and not by plaintiff. Thus, it is submitted that for rejecting the plaint, Trial Court has relied upon the document filed by defendant. Above all, the said document was not in existence on the date of presentation of the suit, and it came into existence only during the pendency of suit. It is submitted that Trial Court will have every jurisdiction to consider the effect of compromise decree dated 11.3.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.11-A/2011 while deciding the suit on merits, but for consideration of application filed under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, the aforesaid document could not have been taken into consideration. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be interfered with.

6. Per contra, counsels for respondents have supported the findings recorded by trial Court. It is submitted that once plaintiff herself has entered into a compromise, therefore, the trial Court did not commit any mistake by allowing the application filed under Order 7 rule 11 CPC.

7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

8. Application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage, but scope of consideration would remain the same, i.e. plaint averments and documents filed alongwith plaint. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2007, and at that time compromise decree relied upon by trial Court for rejecting the plaint was not in existence. Civil Suit No. 11-A/2011 was filed in the year 2011, i.e. during pendency of the present suit and the compromise decree was passed on 11.3.2011. Above all, the copy of compromise decree was filed by defendant, and it is not a document of the plaintiff.

9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that although, an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC which was filed at belated stage was maintainable, but still trial Court was only required to consider the plaint averments as well as documents filed alongwith plaint. The rejection of plaint by trial Court by relying upon the document filed by defendant is an erroneous and, therefore, the impugned order dated 5.11.2015 VIIth Additional District Judge, Gwalior cannot be given the stamp of judicial approval.

10. Ex co