S. No. 28 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RSA No. 02/2025 Mst. Fata …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Laila Khan, Advocate Vs. Mehraj Ud Din Ganai and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 28.10.2025 1. A suit filed by plaintiff/respondent herein was rejected by the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the application filed by the defendant, on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. While passing the said order dated 20.06.2022, the Trial Court appears to have taken into account the defence taken by defendant in the written statement and, on that basis, concluded that there was no cause of action. 2. Aggrieved by the Trial Court order, an appeal was preferred before the Court of Principal District Judge, Ganderbal. The learned 1st Appellate Court vide order impugned dated 22.11.2024 while accepting the appeal, remanded the case back to the Trial Court and it is on the basis of the 1st Appellate Court’s observations that the Trial Court has been directed to decide the application afresh. 3. Order impugned is being challenged in this appeal under Section 100 of CPC on the ground that substantial questions of law arise for determination. The appellant has proposed the substantial questions of law in ground XII of the memo of appeal which are as under:- a) Whether the first appellate court erred in law by setting aside the trial court’s well-reasoned order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without properly appreciating the legal principles governing inheritance under Muslim Personal Law and the procedural deficiencies in the plaint? b) Whether the first appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter for a fresh trial despite the trial court’s findings that the suit was vexatious, lacked a clear cause of action, and was barred under Muslim Personal Law? c) Whether, under Muslim Personal Law, children of a predeceased daughter can claim inheritance rights in the property of their grandmother who is still alive and remains in possession of the ancestral property? d) Whether the first appellate court failed to correctly interpret the principles of Order VII Rule 11 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly regarding the disclosure of a cause of action and suppression of material facts in the plaint? e) Whether the first appellate court’s decision violates the established principles of natural justice by failing to adequately consider the appellant’s evidence and submission, including the rightful ownership of the suit property? f) Whether the first appellate court overlooked the ambiguity and contradiction in the plaint, particularly regarding the description of the suit property and the reliefs sought, thereby allowing an unsustainable claim to proceed? g) Whether the first appellant court’s direction to conduct a fresh trial amount to a miscarriage of justice by unnecessarily prolonging litigation and burdening an elderly appellant, contrary to principles of judicial efficiency and fairness? h) Whether the suit filed by the respondents amounted to an abuse of process of law, considering the suppression of material facts and their exclusion from inheritance under the governing Muslim Personal law? i) That the appeal is valued at Rs. 300/- and proper fee is annexed herewith. j) That the appellant reserves her right to urge additional grounds at the time of arguments, of course, with prior permission of this Hon’ble Court. k) That this appeal is supported by an affidavit duly sworn/attested. 4. As is clear from the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that plaint did not disclose any cause of action. However, in doing so, the Trial Court appears to have considered the defence raised in the written statement, which is impermissible while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court, it is well settled law, is required to examine the plaint itself to ascertain whether it discloses a cause of action or not, and not the averments of written statement or the contents of application under Order VII and Rule 11 CPC. The 1st Appellate Court has, thus, rightly observed this error and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of rejection of the plaint. This Court finds that there is no fault in the Order passed by the 1st Appellate Court. 5. The substantial questions of law, proposed by the appellant, do not arise in the present case inasmuch as the only issue before the 1st Appellate Court was whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and whether the Trial Court erred in considering the written statement while rejecting the plaint and on that basis, it was to be observed that there was no cause of action, which has been rightly and correctly addressed by 1st Appellate Court. 6. Since none of the substantial questions of law as proposed arise, the instant appeal shall fail, and is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, it is ordered that the Trial Court shall proceed expeditiously and decide the matter in accordance with law. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 28.10.2025 Shabroz