The trial court must evaluate plaints for clear causes of action, dismissing those that are vexatious and lack legal foundation.

1. This Revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 30.11.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.19A / 2013 by the 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Raipur (C.G.) whereby the application preferred by the applicant / defendant No.3 under O.7 R.11 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. Necessary facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction for demolition of illegal construction over the land of the plaintiffs by making an averment inter alia that plaintiff No.1 is the owner of Khasra No.1185/1J area 0.344 hectare and plaintiff No.2 is also the owner of Khasra No.1185/1J area 0.344 hectare and both had purchased the said property from the trust known as "Ramchandra Ji Swami Bhagirathi Mandir Trust, Shankar Nagar Raipur" through different sale deeds executed on 04.01.2000. It has been further averred that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.5 and defendant No.3 / applicant herein constructed a boundary wall on some part of the subject land and the same has been revealed and came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 16.12.2021 and after amending the pleading and arraying the applicant and defendant No.5 as a party, the aforesaid relief was sought. In the said suit, defendant No.4 and defendant No.3 / applicant herein separately filed an application under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, which was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application filed by the applicant, as initially the suit was filed in the year 2006 and no specific cause of action was disclosed against the applicant about the date of knowledge of the alleged construction of the boundary wall. He would submit that the cause of action would be different against the original defendant, so the plaintiffs ought to have filed a separate civil suit. He would further submit that while considering the application filed under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was observed that only plaint averment has to be seen and not the averment in the written statements. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance in the matter of Ramisetty Venkatanna And Another v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Others , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 521 : (AIR 2023 SC (Civ) 2183) and refers to Paras 24 to 31 which read thus: -

"24. In the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal 1977 (4) SCC 467 : (AIR 1977 SC 2421) in paragraph 5 while considering the provision of Order VII Rule XI, this Court has observed as under: -
"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O.7 R.11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under O.10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits."
"25. In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. , 2004 (3) SCC 137 : (AIR 2004 SC 1801) in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed and held as under:
"11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 1998 (2) SCC 70 : (AI