The court emphasized that the plaint alone should be looked into to ascertain the cause of action, and the court cannot probe into the issue touching the merits of the case for deciding any application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C.

ORDER :

This revision is filed assailing the order dated 10.08.2021 in I.A.No.366 of 2021 in O.S.No.724 of 2019 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. This application in I.A.No.366 of 2021 was filed by the sole defendant under Order VII under Sub Rule (d) of Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) read with Section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act to reject the plaint. That application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this CRP.

2. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. Perused the record.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

5. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for Perpetual Injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property all that the building on Plot Nos 89 and 90 in survey No.44/1, total admeasuring 778 square yards situated at Mathrusri Co-operative House Building Society, Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The defendant has appeared, filed his written statement. After filing the written statement, the defendant has filed the present application in I.A.No.366 of 2021 for rejection of the plaint.

6. The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the application are that, the plaintiff has filed Form No.8 along with the plaint, wherein the dimensions of both the plots bearing Nos.89 and 90 is shown as 778 square yards. The plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest in plot NO.90 or in the building standing therein. The partners of plaintiff’s firm tress-passed into defendant’s building on plot No.90 and illegally enjoying the same. The defendant has also lodged a police complaint on 22.05.2019. As per sub-Section (j) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, suit for injunction is not maintainable, when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. Similarly, there is no cause of action, as per Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. plaint is liable to be rejected on that ground alone.

7. This application is resisted by the plaintiff, who filed detailed counter stating that he has filed I.A.No.894 of 2019 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. He has constructed building in plot Nos.89 and 90 including the plot of the defendant. Major portion of the construction work is completed in three floors and fourth and fifth floors are semi-finished stage in plot No.90 and that it is under the occupation of FIIT JEE intermediate students as hostlers. Infact, the plaintiff has remitted the amount to the account of the defendant. The defendant has leased out the premises for a period of ten years at Rs.15,000/- per floor and on the assurance of the defendant, the plaintiff invested huge amount, completed the construction. The plaint is not liable for rejection either under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C. or as per the sub-Section (j) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The petition filed by the defendant is not maintainable. While considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, the Court cannot go beyond the four corners of plaint and documents, if any annexed therewith and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application.

8. The trial Court on careful analysis of the facts and material available on record dismissed the said application holding that as per Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the averments of the plaint alone have to be looked into to ascertain the cause of action and when the plaint discloses the cause of action and when no such apparent error on the face of record, it is not just and proper to reject the plaint at the premature stage and the Court cannot probe into the issue touching the merits of the case for deciding any application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C.

9. Elaborate submissions are made by counsel for both sides, which are more