O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated

02.08.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.4271 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. All Suits are to be decided on merits and in accordance with law.

Parties to the Suit are entitled to defend their respective cases based on documents and evidences on record.

3. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is to be exercised sparingly and within the ambit of the Sub-Clauses under the Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. The Courts are expected to be cautious, while entertaining Interlocutory Applications filed under Order VII Rule 11, since it prevents the parties from adjudication of issues on merits and in accordance with law. Cause of action alone cannot be a criteria to take a decision and the plaint as a whole must be read to understand the cause of action aroused for institution of a Suit. Even if there is some error or omission in the cause of action, which is rectifiable and even in case, the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11, the plaintiff is entitled to institute a fresh Suit under Order VII Rule XIII and therefore, the rejection of plaint can be done only with reference to the sub-clauses stipulated under Order VII Rule 11 and not otherwise.

4. The present Civil Revision Petition has been instituted against the order dated 02.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.4271 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

5. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent /

plaintiff instituted a Suit for Recovery of Money. The defendants filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.3 of 2021 for rejection of plaint, which was dismissed by the Trial Court mainly on the ground that the 1st plaintiff and the defendant have jointly executed the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018, reportedly at Chennai and the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018 is taken into account for considering the application. It can be very well said that the part of the cause of action for the Suit arose at Chennai within the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the Suit was instituted. Irrespective of the fact that whether the Suit demand promissory note dated 11.06.2018 and the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018 are genuine and really executed by the defendant, the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018 alleged to have executed by the defendant is important to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court and as per the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018, part of cause of action of the Suit arose within the limit of the Trial Court, which entertains the Suit. However, the merits in these aspects are triable issues, which all are to be adjudicated based on the documents and evidences. The plaint cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the Deed executed was a created one. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner in the Interlocutory Application are related to merits and reading of the cause of action column in the plaint would reveal bundle of facts are stated, which all are to be adjudicated on merits by framing issues.

6. The power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to be exercised sparingly by the Courts. All the Suits are to be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with the law. Lenient view is certainly not desirable when the plaint and cause of action reveals certain facts and therefore, the Courts are expected to be doubly cautious, while exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. There may be vexatious suits by the litigants. May that as it be. Even in such cases, if there are certain doubtful facts or otherwise, then conducting a trial would be more preferable than rejecting the plaint. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC enumerates rejection of plaint on certain circumstances as contemplated under sub-clause (a) to (f) in Rule 11.

7. Order VII Rule 13 of CPC denotes: “The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plai