This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the

learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the

respondents.

The petitioners have filed this revision petition

challenging the order dated 17.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in

O.S.No.4646/2020 on the file of the LXVIII Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, rejecting I.A.No.2 filed

under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 to dismiss the

suit on the ground that there is no cause of action to file a suit

for the relief of partition and also for cancellation of the

relinquishment deed.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners

would

vehemently contend that three sisters have executed the

relinquishment deed on 16.10.2015 and also executed a

- 5 -

rectification deed on 20.10.2015 and legal representatives of

other sister also executed relinquishment deed and when they

have executed the relinquishment deed in favour of the

defendants, there is no cause of action and the suit is filed in

the year 2020 and the document was executed in the year

2015 itself and hence, the suit is barred by limitation. Hence,

prayed the Trial Court to reject the plaint.

The plaintiff has also filed the statement of

objection contending that, in the plaint itself, it is specifically

pleaded that by misrepresentation stating that they are going

to register the partition deed, obtained the signature on the

relinquishment deed and she is not having any acquaintance

with English language and she is an illiterate and the defendant

Nos.1 to 4 have obtained the signature on the document

fraudulently and the Court has to look into the averments of

the plaint and not the defence of the defendants.

The Trial Court having considered the grounds

urged in the application as well as the objection statement filed

by the plaintiff, in Para No.13 and 14, the Trial Court comes to

the conclusion that limitation point raised by the defendants is

- 6 -

mixed question of fact and law and the same has to be decided

after examining the parties and also with regard to whether

there is a cause of action or not, the Court has to look into the

averments of the plaint and the very contention that clever

drafting has created an illusion of cause of action and it should

be nipped in the bud cannot be accepted and disputed facts can

be considered by examining the parties and in an application

filed under Order 7, Rule 11, the Court has to look into the

averments of the plaint and when the averments made in the

plaint discloses that disputed facts are involved between the

parties, the same has to be considered only after trial and

dismissed the application. Hence, the present petition is filed

before this Court.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners before this Court is that the very plaint itself is

nothing but an illusion of clever drafting creating cause of

action and the document of relinquishment deed was executed

in the year 2015. The counsel also would submit that the very

document of relinquishment deed was produced before the

Court and it discloses that the plaintiff has signed the document

in English only and the very contention that she is not having

- 7 -

acquaintance with English language cannot be accepted. It is

also contended that, if trial is continued it is nothing but a

punishment and clever drafting of the plaint cannot be a ground

to continue the suit and the same has to be rejected by

allowing the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with

Section 151 of CPC.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

would submit that mainly there are two grounds urged in the

application i.e., one with regard to the fact that suit is barred

by limitation and to that effect, there is a clear pleading in the

plaint with regard to obtaining signature by playing fraud

asking her to come to the Sub-Registrar office to sign the

partition deed but, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have obtained the

signature in the relinquishment deed. The counsel also woul