Sri. Sundara Raman. M.V., learned counsel for

petitioner and Sri.S.Shivaprasad, learned counsel for

respondents have appeared in person.

The

Civil

Revision

Petition

is

listed

for

admission.

3.

The parties are referred to as per their

rankings before the Trial Court.

4.

The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

It is stated that RBANM9s Educational Charities (the

defendant) is a 147-year-old public charitable trust

founded in 1873 focused on serving low-income, first-

generation learners from marginalized communities in

Urban Bangalore.

It is stated that the plaintiffs are meddle-some

interlopers in the habit of making false and concocted

claims over valuable properties in and around Bangalore.

3

It is averred that the defendant has been in

possession of the schedule property since 1929. The

schedule property was conveyed to the defendant by the

Municipal Commissioner of Civil and Military Station of

Bangalore. The defendant is paying property tax in

relation to the schedule property to BBMP and its

predecessors-in-interest.

Amongst

other

things,

the

schedule property is currently being utilized to provide

sporting facilities for youth in Bangalore.

The plaintiffs along with one Ramesh Reddy claim to

be the registered agreement holders of the suit schedule

property. They aver that they have agreed to purchase

schedule property from one Maheswari Ranganathan,

Thilagavathy, Amsavalli and Amalraj, the alleged owners

of

the

schedule

property

for

a

consideration

of

Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores Only). It is said

that the purported owners of the schedule property are

not parties to the suit.

After service of summons, the defendant entered

appearance and filed an application in I.A.No.3 under

4

Order VII Rule 11 ( a) & (d) of CPC contending that there

is no cause of action in favor of the plaintiff for instituting

the suit and the pliant is barred by law. The plaintiff filed

objections. The trial court rejected the application vide

order dated 11.06.2021. Hence, this revision petition is

filed on various grounds as set out in the revision petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner has urged several

contentions.

Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the

following decision:

1. (2004) 8 SCC 614 - Rambhau Namdeo Gajre

Vs. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (Dead) Through

LR9s.

2. (2003 ) 1 SCC 557 - Salem Bhai and others Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others.

3. (2004) 3 SCC 137- Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and

others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and

Others.

4. (2014) 4 ALD 276 - Kumar Brothers &

Company Vs. A.P. Housing Board & Ors.

5

5.

Heard

the

contentions

and

perused

the

petition papers with care.

6.

The short point which requires consideration is

whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the

application?

In the present case, the defendant has moved an

application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC.

The defendant has stated that the cause of action

plays a vital role in deciding the disputes between parties.

It is also stated that the plaintiff has not disclosed a clear

right to sue against him and he has not disclosed a cause

of action to file the suit.

Suffice it to note that cause of action is not defined

in the Code. The expression <cause of action= has acquired

a judicially settled meaning. Cause of action means bundle

of fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to

prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the

judgment of the Court. In the legal parlance the

expression <cause of action= is generally understood to

6

mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to

maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal; a group of

operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing;

a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a

remedy in court from another person.

It is true that a plaint which does not disclose any

cause of action should be rejected. But it would be

relevant to note that there is a clear difference between

the non-disclosure of cause of a