CR No.67/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CR No.67/2025 CM No.6983/2025 WAKEELA JAN ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Muheet Yousuf, Advocate. Vs. SONIA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 28.10.2025 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has called in question order dated 11.09.2025 passed by 4th Additional Munsiff, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”), whereby her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2) It appears that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2 before the learned trial court seeking permanent injunction. In the plaint it has been pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession of share in a double storied residential house falling under Khasra No.549 situated at Mirza Bagh, Nigeen (Check Saderbal), Srinagar. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff has raised construction of one storey of the Sr. No.99 Suppl List CR No.67/2025 residential house out of her own resources and the defendants are trying to dispossess her from the said property. 3) It seems that petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has no right or share in the suit property. 4) The learned trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the application of defendant No.1/petitioner on the ground that the plaint discloses cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and that the relief prayed by the plaintiff is not barred by any law. 5) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts relating to partition process which is pending before the revenue authorities. It has been contended that the petitioner has not been given fair hearing before passing the impugned order. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case. 7) It is a settled law that at the time of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments CR No.67/2025 made in the plaint are to be considered. The defence that may be taken by the defendant in his written statement or in his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not to be gone into by the trial court while deciding the question whether or not the plaint is liable to be rejected. 8) In the present case, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that she is in possession of the suit property and that she has raised construction of one storey from her own resources. She has further pleaded that the defendants are un-necessarily raising dispute with her and are trying to dispossess her from the suit property. The suit has only been filed for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is required to plead that she is in possession of the suit property, which she has pleaded. Thus, it cannot be stated that the plaint do not disclose cause of action or that the same is barred by any law. 9) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly along with connected CM. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 28.10.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy”