(i) Whether the impugned Order rejecting the
plaint invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the
Code of Civil Procedure suffers from perversity and
warrants interference?
10. FINDING ON POINT NO.(i):
11. This Court also deems it fit to refer to the
VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(5) I state that at the paragraph no.6 plaintiff
stated that a fake partition deed was created by the
join family members dated 01.04.1989, the said
document is not questioned by the plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC:19218
HC-KAR
(6) I state that, plaintiff is a totally stranger to
the suit schedule property.
(7) I state that, as per the document furnish by
the plaintiff i.e., grnats order in HOA Talavri CR
7/1979-80 the re-grant was made in favour of father
of this defendant namely Chithappa, S/o Papaiah.
(8) I state that, by virtue of this re-grant order
the katha of the suit property was transferred in the
name of this defendant vide MR No.17/1994-95.
(9) I state that, this defendant is in exclusive in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property.
(10) I state that, upon the meaning full reading of
the plaint it doesn't show cause of action and also
right to sue for the plaintiff to claim owner ship of the
suit schedule property."
12. On a conjoint reading of the relevant
paragraphs of the plaint along with the averments
contained in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the affidavit filed in
support of the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to
(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is of the
considered view that the defendant has failed to establish
NC: 2025:KHC:19218
HC-KAR
any of the grounds that would warrant rejection of the
plaint under the said provision. A deeper scrutiny of the
averments made in the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has
indeed disclosed a cause of action, and the reliefs sought
therein cannot be said to be barred by any law, including
limitation, at this stage.
13. Rather than confining itself to the limited scope
of inquiry permissible under Order VII Rule 11, the learned
Trial Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred under
the said provision and has, in effect, conducted a mini-
trial. By referring extensively to various documents
produced by the plaintiff, including entries in the revenue
records such as the RTC and mutation register, the
learned Judge has drawn conclusions on disputed
questions of fact. This approach, in the opinion of this
Court, is wholly impermissible while deciding an
application under Order VII Rule 11, which mandates the
Court to restrict its examination to the averments in the
plaint and not to the veracity of any document or defense.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19218
HC-KAR
14. The learned Trial Judge, without affording the
plaintiff an opportunity to substantiate his claim through a
full-fledged trial, has summarily dismissed the suit by a
cryptic and unsustainable order. The rejection of the plaint
on the ground of limitation was never specifically pressed
by the defendant. Nevertheless, the learned Judge, on the
basis of some entries in the revenue records, concluded
that the cause of action arose in the year 1995, and
therefore, the suit filed in 2022 is barred by limitation.
This conclusion, rendered without proper pleadings or
framing of issues, amounts to a premature adjudication of
disputed facts, which ought to have been examined only
during trial.
15. It is well settled that objections relating to the
absence of cause of action must be examined in a liberal
and purposive manner. A meaningful reading of the plaint,
particularly paragraph 5, reveals that the plaintiff has
referred to a historical transaction dating back to 1921 as
part of the background narrative, but the cause of action is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19218
HC-KAR
clearly pleaded to have arisen on 29.07.2022. The suit
itself having been filed in the same year, the question of
limitation does not arise at this preliminary stage.
Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have adopted a
liberal approach, especially when the dispute pertains to
immovable property and proprietary rights.
16. Though the defendant filed an application
under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the CPC, there is a
conspicuous absence of specific pleadings or supporting
material in the affidavit to show that the suit is barred by
any law. Notwithstanding this, the learned Judge, without
referring to the legal requisites under Order VII Rule
11(d), has proceeded to reject the plaint primarily on the
ground of limitation, an aspect neither substantiated by
the defendant nor justified in law at the stage of
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11.
17. While clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
mandatory in nature and requires the Court to reject a
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19218
HC-KAR
plaint that fails to disclose a cause of action, it is equally
well settled that there exists a fundamental distinction
between a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action
and one where the cause of action is merely weak or
ultimately untenable. The learned Trial Judge,
unfortunately, has failed to appreciate this distinction and
has erroneously equated the alleged absence of cause of
action with the inadequacy of the pleadings, which is not
the standard under Order VII Rule 11.
18. In the present case, the plaint, read as a
whole, does not indicate that the plaintiff had absolutely
no cause of action as on the date of institution of the suit.
On the contrary, the pleadings disclose a triable issue, and
the suit seeks comprehensive reliefs of declaration and
injunction based on rights claimed over immovable
property. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
plaintiff cannot be non-suited at the threshold stage
merely on the ground that his claims are contentious or
arguable.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19218
HC-KAR
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered view that the learned Trial Judge was not
justified in rejecting the plaint at the inception without
allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to prove his case
through evidence. The very nature of the suit, which
involves assertion of rights over immovable property,
necessitates a full-fledged trial. The learned Judge has
failed to appreciate that the affidavit filed in support of the
application under Order VII Rule 11 contains only vague
and general averments, which do not satisfy the stringent
requirements of the said provision for rejection of the
plaint.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court rejecting the plaint is unsustainable in law and
on facts, and the same is liable to be set aside.
Consequently, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative,
holding that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at the threshold.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19218
HC-KAR
21. FINDING ON POINT No.(ii):
In view of the finding of the this court on point No.(i)
as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 17.12.202 passed in
O.S.No.639/2022 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura is
hereby set aside.
(iii) Suit is restored on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura. Matter is
remitted to the Trial Court.
(iv) The parties are relegated to substantiate
their respective claim by leading their
respective oral and documentary evidence.
(v) Defendant is permitted to file the written
statement within a period of sixty days from
today.
(vi) All contentions are kept open.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19218
HC-KAR
(vii) Since the parties are represented by their
counsel's, they are hereby directed to appear
before the Trial Court on 01.07.2025 without
further notice.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
kcm
