A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 unless it is barred by law; the trial court must consider the plaint's statements without delving into defenses.

ORAL ORDER

1. Order dated 23.5.2024 passed below application Exh.27in Regular Civil Suit No.126 of 2022 has been called in question by way of filing present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1. The applicants are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 126 of 2022 filed before the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Borsad instituted by the original plaintiff- respondent herein. The suit had been instituted by the plaintiff- respondent herein praying for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Further the plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction against the present applicants over the suit land. The plaintiff further prayed that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.2 in favor of the defendant no.1 be declared to be cancelled.

2.2. Thereafter the present applicants filed application below Exhibit 27 under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint of Regular Civil Suit No. 126 of 2022.

2.3. The respondent - original plaintiff also filed reply Exh.29 to the application below Exh.27 filed by the present applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2.4 The applicants herein also filed a list of judgments before the Ld. Trial Court in pursuance of the said application.

2.5 By way of the impugned order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Borsad below Exh.27 in Regular Civil Suit No.126 of 2022, the application of the present applicants under Order VII Rule XI came to be rejected.

2.6 Hence, present revision.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jamshed Kavina for the petitioners.

4. In essence, the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint and therefore, unsuccessful petitioners – original defendants are before this Court.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners taking this Court through the copy of the plaint (Annexure A) would submit that the plaintiff has written the plaint on multiple cause of action; firstly he pleaded that he is a permissive user and then he also pleaded that he has right like preemption to purchase the property first and yet the defendants have sold the disputed property without asking the plaintiff to purchase the same and in the same breath, the plaintiff also pleaded about the adverse possession having no pleadings of animus possessendi or the hostile possession to the title and in view of that, inconsistent plea of the plaint having no real cause of action, the plaint was required to be rejected. He would further submit that the person, who is caretaker/servant of the property cannot seek the protection of permissive possession and he is to be thrown out from the disputed property and his plalint is to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Refernce has been made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Himalaya Vintrade Private Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Zahid and another reported in (2022) 13 SCC 649.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shri Uttam Chand (D) through Lrs Vs. Nathu Ram (D) through reported in 2020(11) SCC 263, and argued that for the purpose of claiming the relief of adverse possession, the plaintiff has to aver that on which date, he entered into the disputed property, from which date, his possession became adverse within the knowledge of the title holder and how the possession of the plaintiff is adverse to the possession of the defendants. He would further submit that in absence of the pleadings thereof, the plaintiff cannot claim relief for perfecting the title on the basis of adverse possession. He would further submit that necessary consequential relief is also not prayed. The necessary consequential relief, which could be prayed by the plaintiff, is the relief in regards to right to purchase the prop