RAVI AGARWAL Vs. GOVIND RAJ SHETTY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for petitioner.

(2.) WRIT petitioner is defendant in O.S. No. 7383/2012. Being aggrieved by order dated 23.07.2015, Annexure -C, rejecting application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) whereunder defendant had sought for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action for the suit, since lease deed dated 03.11.2004 indicating lease was for a period of 10 years and recital in the lease deed having been substituted by manipulation and insertion having been made as 5 years though preamble indicates it is 10 years and parties having entered into an additional agreement on the same date having been ignored, whereunder it was agreed that term of lease was 10 years. Even before completion of 10 years suit for ejectment has been filed and as such, there was no cause of action for the suit.

(3.) SRI K. Manjunath, learned counsel for petitioner would reiterate the contentions raised before the trial Court and grounds urged in the present writ petition. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that averments made in the plaint alone would be the basis for considering an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a). For this proposition the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SMT. PASTASIBAI AND OTHERS vs. RATANLAL reported in : 1990 2 SCC 42 can be looked up and for the proposition that plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of averments made either in the written statement or the affidavit supporting the application for such rejection, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAYAR (H.K) LTD. & ORS. vs. OWNERS & PARTIES, VESSEL M.V. FORTUNE EXPRESS & ORS. reported in : AIR 2006 SC 1828 can be looked up.