GANPATI INFRABUILD PVT LTD Vs. SUDARSHANA DUGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), defendants have prayed for rejection of the plaint. It is alleged that suit does not disclose any cause of action, thus, plaint is liable to be rejected.

(2.) THERE is no gainsaying that the Court can exercise power, as envisaged under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code at any stage of the proceedings. For the purpose of disposal of an application under the said provision, Court has to only consider the averments made in the plaint coupled with the documents on record. Plaint has to be read as a whole and not in piece meal. Defence of the defendant has not to be considered. Pleas taken in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant, inasmuch as, averments made in the application. Only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed the plaint, as a whole, has to be rejected. Real object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is to keep the Courts out of irresponsible law suit. In Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557, Apex Court has held that with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit. Such a power can be exercised even before registering the plaint. Court can reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under Clauses (a) and (d) of the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. In I.T.C. Limited versus Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Others (1998) 2 SCC 70, Supreme Court held that basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. In Roop Lal Sathi versus Nachhattar Singh AIR 1982 SC 1559, Supreme Court held that only a part of plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed the plaint as a whole must be rejected. In M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property 1998(7) SCC184, Supreme Court observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was applicable.

(3.) PLAINTIFF has filed this suit for specific performance of the "bayana-cum-agreement receipt" dated 13th March, 2011 in respect of the property bearing no. A-8/15, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction. It may be worth mentioning here that the title of the document, specific performance whereof has been sought, is ,,Receipt and not "bayana-cum-agreement receipt".