KANHAIYA LAL Vs. RAJ NARAIN SARIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order of rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Agra in Suit No. 499 of 1990 on 23rd October, 1992. Mr. G.N. Verma assisted by Mr. P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Court below while deciding the question under Order 7 Rule 11 had taken aid of defence that has been brought in by the defendnts and had proceeded on the basis of certain findings as to the veracity of the statement made in the plaint and in fact, has pre-empted the finding with regard to the various issues that might have cropped up on the basis of the plaint. According to him, in order to determine a question under Order 7 Rule 11, it is only the pleadings made out in the plaint, which is to be looked into. The Court cannot look into anything beyond the plaint. It cannot consider either the written statement or the defence or other material that might have been produced by the defendants. Therefore, the order appealed against cannot be sustained.

(2.) Mr. B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the defendants on the other hand contends that from the plaint itself, it appears that the suit is absolutely frivolous and vexatious. He points out that it is a collusive suit. One Sri Aziz had set up the plaintiff after the said Aziz had been unsuccessful in his attempt up to the Apex Court. He also contends that the plaintiff was never in possession and the defendants were in possession and had also referred to various documents which were produced by way of defence as well as had based his submission on arguments with regard to the defence case and probability of the plaintiff's case as well as various materials to show that the plaintiff's case cannot be sustained and the plaintiff's statement made in the plaint are incorrect and untrue. He led me through various documents to show that the plaintiff did not have any title and they were out of possession and that the statement made in the plaint with regard to the possession is wholly baseless. In fact he had addressed the Court on the question of merit of the case having regard to the defence in order to prove that the pleadings made out in the plaint are baseless and that those are incorrect. He had also relied on certain decisions in support of his contention to which reference would be made at appropriate stage. I have heard both the counsels at length.

(3.) Order 7 Rule 11 provides that a plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. The expression 'it' refers to the plaint. Thus Order 7 Rule 11 confines the consideration of rejection of a plaint only to the pleadings made out in the plaint in order to find out as to whether it discloses a cause of action or not. This provision is exercised at the threshold in order to prevent frivolous litigation. If the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in that event, there is no right for the plaintiff to pursue a suit since he had no cause of action. This question is to be looked into within the four corners of the pleadings made out in the plaint alone. No extrinsic aid can be available to the Court for the purpose of determining a question under Order 7 Rule 11 or from any source whatsoever. It can neither look into the written statement nor it can look into the materials that might be brought by the defendants nor it can look into the defence that might be taken by the defendants. Mr. Mandhyan contended that he had only brought about the deed itself which has been referred to in the plaint, to have been executed in the year 1941 by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and sought to point out from the deed itself that an interpretation of the deed will show that no cause of action has been pleaded in the plaint, which could be available to the plaintiff. But I am afraid that such a proposition can be accepted. If any external aid is to be taken from the deed itself then again it will be outside the scope of the plaint unless the plaint is dependent only on the document itself. On the other hand, in the plaint, as in the present case plaintiff has neither questioned the document nor had depended on it. It had based its claim on the basis of its possession and that the alleged document was not effective in respect of the portion of the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the aid of the said deed cannot help us to find out as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. The argument made by Mr. Mandhyan attempted to disprove the allegations made in the plaint to disprove the cause of action that has been disclosed in the plaint. Thus it again travels beyond the pleadings made in the plaint. But the said disproof of the document could be accepted provided there was no statement that the plaintiff was in possession. In the absence of statement of possession in the plaint, the deed would have been of assistance to Mr. Mandhyayan in order to substantiate his contention. But as soon there was an allegation of possession then the deed becomes a defence and as such it cannot be looked into for the purpose of determining the issue under Order 7 Rule 11.