This petition is filed challenging the order dated

23.02.2023 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.561/2021 on the

file of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru City.

2.

This petition is listed for admission. Heard the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3.

The revision petitioner has filed an application

before the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 read with

Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint

with exemplary cost. In support of the application, an

affidavit was sworn to contending that the averments of the

plaint are totally false and fabricated and an attempt of the

- 3 -

plaintiff to deceive this Court by giving a false information

to obtain a decree of injunction. Therefore, the plaint is

liable to be rejected. It is further contended that he has

purchased the vacant site No.10 and 11 formed in larger

extent of site bearing Nos.24, 25 and 28 covered in

Sy.No.105/1 situated at Singasandra village, Begur Hobli,

Bangalore South Taluk from the previous owners by way of

registered sale deed dated 13.10.2020. It is also

contended that the property of the plaintiff has been

already acquired by way of preliminary notification dated

15.04.1988 and final notification dated 28.04.1989. On

04.05.1990, an award has been passed in favour of

Gangadharappa who is the vendor of the plaintiff and the

said land was acquired and granted to the Aircraft

employees Cooperative Society and the said acquisition

proceedings

has

been

affirmed

by

this

Court

in

W.P.No.6410/2006. After these proceedings, still the said

Gangadharappa sold 09 guntas of land in Sy.No.105/1

which is the subject matter of the suit. Previous to the

present

suit,

one

more

suit

had

been

filed

in

- 4 -

O.S.No.108/2015 against the said society which came to be

dismissed holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his

possession over the suit schedule property. But still, the

plaintiff has filed this present suit and same is also not

maintainable. Hence, it requires to be dismissed.

4.

The counsel for the plaintiff has filed the

statement of objections resisting the contention of the

defendant stating that this Court has to take note of the

averments made in the application filed under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC that is only the plaint averments and the

case of the plaintiff has to be looked into not the

allegations made out in the written statement filed by the

defendant. The plaint cannot be rejected only on the basis

of the contentions raised in the written statement. The

defendant himself contends that his property and the

property

of

the

plaintiff

are

different.

Under

such

circumstances, the defendant cannot have any grievance

over the suit property. The controversy involved in the suit

are required to be answered by way of trial. But on the

- 5 -

basis of assumption and presumption, the defendant has

filed the present application which required to be rejected.

5.

The Trial Court having considered the grounds

urged in the application as well as in the objection

statement and also considering the material on record and

the settled principles, an observation is made that what has

to be seen while considering the application filed under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The object of incorporation of

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to see that frivolous and

vexatious litigations should be curbed at the threshold at

appropriate stage and at the same time the Court has to

look into the averments made in the plaint whether it

constitute a cause of action and whether the suit is within

the provisions of law. The Trial Court having considering

the pleadings of the parties, the material on record and the

principles laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court

comes to the conclusion that cause of action has acquired

judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of

action means the circumstances forming infraction of the

right or the immediate occasion for the action. in the wider

- 6 -

sense,

it

means

the

nece