A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a cause of action, and the burden lies on the plaintiff to provide necessary documentation to substantiate claims, especially in partition suits among Hindu families.

ORDER :

1. This revision petition has been filed against the docket order dated 10.03.2023 passed in SR. No.14 of 2023 in un-registered suit of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents/defendants 1 to 4 herein are the natural brothers, respondent/defendant No.5 is the only daughter and the respondent/defendant No.6 is their mother.

3. It is the case of the revision petitioner that he filed unregistered suit of 2023 for partition and separate possession over the suit schedule properties. The learned trial Court at the initial stage had taken certain objections for which the petitioner answered and the learned trial Court having not satisfied with the same, had rejected the plaint holding that the revision petitioner/plaintiff did not file the market valuation certificates of all the suit schedule properties except Item No.14/A, 14/B and 14/C to assess the correct valuation of the suit schedule properties and failed to produce the documents showing the joint family funds for acquiring and for subsequently constructing the suit schedule properties by the defendants No.1 and 2 and also that the plaintiff did not file the documents to show the ownership of the schedule properties of Item No.1 to 15 except Item No.14/A, 14/B and 14/C and failed to comply with the objections. Assailing the same, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court had mainly rejected the plaint for non filing of the original documents/certified copies including the market value certificate of the suit scheduled property which can be summoned from the respondents/defendants at a later point of suit trial. The learned trial Court without doing so had rejected the plaint in toto. To substantiate the case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Jaganath Misra and others Vs. Lokanath Misra and another , AIR 1981 Orissa 52 and would submit that the presumption of law is that all Hindu families are joint unless the contrary is proved and the onus is on the defendants to prove that there has been severance of the joint status. He also placed reliance in the case of Mohd. Osman Ali Vs. Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and another , 2010 (5) ALT 411 and would submit that at the stage of scrutiny and registration of suit it is no part of duty of Court to insist on production of sufficient documentary evidence in support of his prayer in the suit and the plaintiff loses the suit if he does not produce proper material.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and perused the material made available on the record.

6. The main grievance of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the learned trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint during the course of scrutiny and the respondents/defendants could be summoned during the course of trial for the required documents.

7. In the grounds urged by the revision petitioner it is submitted that the Order under revision is against the basic principles of law and against the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and against the settled positions of law relating to the legal presumptions available to plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession among Hindus as they all are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law. It is also urged that every Hindu Family is deemed to be a Joint Family unless the contrary is p