Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a plaint can only be rejected based on the averments within the plaint itself; disputed questions of fact, such as the validity of a Will or the nature of the suit, must be decided during the trial after evidence is led.

Digitally signed by SHAYNA NAFR KADRI

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

Order on Board

1. The present civil revision has been preferred by the applicant/defendant No.1 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Judge, Durg to the Court of I Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit Class-A No.153-A/2025, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff has instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title over the suit property situated at Village Nawagaon, Tahsil Bori, District Durg, comprising several khasra numbers admeasuring total area of about 1.70 hectares. The plaintiff has claimed himself to be the exclusive owner of the said property on the basis of an alleged partition deed. Upon receipt of summons, the present applicant/defendant No.1 appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC contending that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose a cause of action and is based on suppression of material facts. It was specifically contended that the suit property is subject matter of a Will dated 29.08.2016 executed in favour of multiple beneficiaries, including the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive ownership over the entire property. It was further contended that the plaintiff has deliberately not disclosed the existence of the said Will and has attempted to mislead the Court. It was also argued that the nature of dispute is essentially one of partition, and without proper adjudication of shares and rights, the suit for declaration is not maintainable. The plaintiff/respondent filed a reply to the said application denying the knowledge of the Will and asserting that the claim of the defendant involves disputed questions of fact which require evidence. It was submitted that the plaint discloses a clear cause of action and cannot be rejected at the threshold. The learned trial Court, after considering the rival submissions, rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC holding that the issues raised by the defendant cannot be adjudicated at the preliminary stage and require trial. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has suppressed the existence of a registered Will dated 29.08.2016, which materially affects the claim made in the plaint. It is further submitted that the Will clearly demonstrates that the property was intended to be devolved upon multiple beneficiaries, and therefore, the claim of exclusive ownership by the plaintiff is ex facie untenable and does not disclose a valid cause of action. Learned counsel argues that the plaintiff, by not disclosing the Will, has approached the Court with unclean hands, and such plaint deserves to be rejected at the threshold. It is also contended that the dispute essentially relates to partition of property, and without seeking appropriate relief before the competent forum, the present suit for declaration is not maintainable. Hence, the trial Court ought to