IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rejection of plaint – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction—Wrong description of suit property—Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, plaint cannot be rejected for wrong description of immovable property being subject matter of suit.
(2) Rejection of plaint—There is distinction between “non disclosure of cause of action” and “non existence of cause of action.

ORDER (ORAL)

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein for setting aside of order dated 03.06.2024 (hereinafter to be referred as the „Impugned Order ) passed by the court of 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the „Trial Court ) in case titled as “Ishar Dass vs. Kishore Kumar”.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition reveals that the respondent herein filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant petitioner herein praying therein that the defendant petitioner herein be restrained from forcibly evicting the plaintiff/respondent herein from the suit property being an immovable property covered under Khasra No. 26 min, Khata No. 130 ad Khewat No. 86 situated at Pacca Talab, Bahu Fort, Jammu.

3. During the pendency of the suit after the defendant petitioner herein entered appearance before the trial court, the defendant petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the premise that the plaintiff respondent herein has given wrong description of the suit property with an aim to encroach upon the adjacent house of the defendant petitioner herein and to dispossess him therefrom and that the plaintiff respondent herein has no cause of action to maintain the suit as the plaintiff respondent herein has been out of the possession of the suit property.

4. The aforesaid application filed by the defendant petitioner herein came to be dismissed by the trial court upon considering the same in terms of impugned order dated 03.06.2024.

5. The petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order in the instant petition inter alia on the grounds that the same is illegal and non sustainable in the eyes of law and that the trial court failed to consider the ambit and scope of the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC while considering the application filed by the defendant petitioner herein before it for seeking rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff respondent herein. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Before proceeding to advert to the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order, it would be appropriate to refer hereunder to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as also to the position of law propounded by the Apex Court in this regard.

“Order 7 Rule 11. Rejection of Plaint-

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

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

b) xxx

c) xxx

d) xxx

e) xxx

The Apex Court in “Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2003 (1) SCC 557”, has observed as under: -

“A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The Trial Court can exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC at any stage of the suit before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purpose of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.”

In “Raptakos Brett and Company Limited Vs. Ganesh Property, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 184”, Apex Court has held as follows: -

“That while considering the application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the distinction that the averments made in the plaint does not make out a cause of action and that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file a suit has to be borne in mind as it is only where the averments made in the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”

7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law inasmuch as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments (Supra) and reverting back to the case in hand, admittedl