THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR C.R.P.No.1101 of 2025

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order, dt.05.03.2025 in IA.No.444 of 2023 in O.S.No.43 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

3. Petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.1, 3 & 4 in the above suit filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff seeking relief of partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties.

4. Petitioners filed their written statement in the above suit and sought for dismissal of the suit by taking all available pleas; and that thereafter they had filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the 1^st respondent/plaintiff cannot claim any interest in the suit schedule property to be partitioned, as the said property was sold for family necessities under a registered sale deed in favour of 3rd respondent, which fact is also known to the

1^st respondent/plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the Court below erred in dismissing the underlying application in a routine manner without considering the contentions and documents, as such sought for setting aside the impugned order.

6. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff by the counter affidavit filed before the Court below had contended that the petitioners herein had approached the Hon’ble High Court at an earlier point of time against the order in IA.No.370 of 2022 vide CRP.No.1218 of 2023; and that the Hon’ble High Court while setting aside the order impugned in the said revision, directed the trial Court to dispose of the main suit viz., O.S.No.43 of 2022 within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order; and that the revision petitioner filed the underlying interlocutory application thereafter only to delay the main suit and thus, sought for dismissal.

7. I have taken note of the above submissions made.

8. Before proceeding to consider the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it would be apposite to note that the power of the Court while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint is to ensure that a meaningless and adoptive litigation meaningless and abortive litigation are prevented from occupying the time of the Court (See: Azhar Hussein v.

Rajiv Gandhi1).

9. However, it is also to be noted that since, the rejection of plaint denies the entry of a citizen into the Civil Court, the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has to be exercised carefully and cautiously.

10. In order to consider as to whether an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint,

1 AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 1253

the Court has to only consider the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant(See: Saleem Bhai And Ors v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2003 (1) SCC 557).

11. In order to consider an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, the pleadings in the plaint ought to be read as a while without compartmentalizing, isolation, dissection, inversion of the language in the plaint, in order to ascertain its true meaning(See: Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs.The Central Bank of India and Ors, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 2721).

12. Though in the facts of the present case, the petitioners contend that the 1st respondent does not have title to maintain the suit seeking partition and separate possession as the suit schedule property has been sold, which fact is also in the knowledge of the 1^st respondent/plaintiff herein, and thus, for the said reason,

the underlying application filed under Order VII Rule 11(A) of CPC ought to have been allowed, it is to be noted that Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC dealing with rejection of