The court affirmed that a plaint must disclose a cause of action to be entertained, and the application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 was correctly dismissed.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 25-03-2025, which rejects the application of the petitioner filed Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC in I.A.No.3 seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. Heard Sri S Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri G A Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. The petitioner is the defendant, the respondents are the plaintiffs. A suit comes to be instituted by the respondents in O.S.No.873 of 2019 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner. The proceedings go on. Written statement is filed, issues are framed on 23-3-2021 and the trial is now fast progressing. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1., the petitioner/defendant comes up with an application in I.A.No.3 of 2024 seeking rejection of the plaint, on the score that it does not divulge any cause of action and is hopelessly barred by limitation. On both the scores, the matter is contested under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The concerned Court passes an order rejecting the application on the score the cause of action did arise to the plaintiffs in the year 2018 when there was disturbance with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs by the defendant and therefore, the suit filed in the year 2019 was well within limitation. Insofar as the plea of cause of action is concerned, the concerned Court clearly holds that plaint averments clearly depicts cause of action. The rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the averments in the plaint would clearly indicate that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit, as the sale deed upon which the plaintiffs would derive their right is of the year 1972 and after 1972 there is no litigation that is projected by the plaintiffs to derive cause of action to file the suit in the year 2019. He would contend that on both the counts of loss of cause of action and limitation, the plaint ought to have been rejected. The rejection of the application is erroneous and contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases ofNIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA v. HITESH P SANGHVI rendered in S.L.P.(C) No.13459 of 2024 and RAMISETTY VENKATANNA v. NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB reported inAIR Online 2023 SC 459 to buttress his submission that if the plaint averments would not disclose cause of action or it is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Court should entertain the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and reject the plaint.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel Sri G A Srikante Gowda appearing for the 4^th respondent caveator/plaintiff would submit that the suit is now 6 years old. The stage is at the cross examination of P.W.1, at this stage, after completely participating in the suit, the application is preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the score that the plaint averments would not divulge any cause of action. He would submit that it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend that the plaint should be rejected for want of cause of action. Even on the merit of the matter the counsel would contend that cause of action is clearly indicated in the plaint itself, as for the first time disturbance with the peaceful possession is made by the defendant in the year 2018 and the suit is instituted in the year 2019. Therefore t