N. SUNDAR Vs. N. NATESHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed challenging the order of rejection dtd. 5/4/2019 passed on I.A.No.20 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC in O.S.No.15734/2003.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs/ respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court that they have sought for the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule properties wherein they contend that cause of action for the suit arose after the demise of the parents of the plaintiffs and defendants and subsequently in the month of April 2003 when the parties purportedly negotiated arriving at a mutual settlement. Defendant No.3 has filed an application in I.A.No.20 before the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint contending that Order VII Rule 1(e) of CPC mandates that the plaint shall contain the facts constituting the cause of action when it arose. There phrase "cause of action" means a bundle of facts which are necessary to be proved in a given case and which gives cause to enforce the legal enquiry for redressal in the Court of law and the same is necessary condition for the maintainability of the suit. In support of his application, defendant No.3 has filed an affidavit stating that in paragraph 7 of the plaint in a vague manner it is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose after demise of the parents of the plaintiffs and the defendants herein and subsequently, they arrived at a settlement mutually agreed upon in respect of immovable property mentioned in the schedule A and B and the said cause of action is un-understandable it cannot be construed as disclosing a cause of action, on a formal reading of the plaint to file and to maintain the suit. When cause of action does not disclose, the plaint is liable to the rejected. The said power can be exercised at any stage as there is no bar or restriction to consider the same before the conclusion of the trial. The real object is to keep out irresponsible suits and the powers can be exercised without the intervention of the defendant and on a formal reading of the plaint if it discovers that the plaint is manifestly vexatious and without merit and further no right to sue is disclosed, the Court can exercise the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.