IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.228 of 2022 Decided on 01st September, 2025 Shri Mohan Lal Goyal …Petitioner Versus Surya Kant Bhagra and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.1to 3. Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the impugned order as well as the suit and has argued that on the strength of the averments made therein, more so in Para 2 to 5 and 7 thereof, no cause had accrued in favour of the petitioners to file the suit and this extremely important aspect of 2 the matter has been totally ignored by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application and by further observing that the non-applicants/plaintiffs were the co-owners of the suit property in terms of the revenue record, therefore, it could not be assumed that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. Learned counsel submitted that these findings are perverse findings in the light of the contents of Para-2 of the plaint, wherein, it was admitted by the plaintiffs themselves that in the year 2009, there was a partition qua the property purchased by predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 that is to say a mutual partition took place amongst plaintiffs and defendant No.2. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order for the reason that as the suit did disclose a cause of action and was not hit by the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(A) of the Civil Procedure Code, learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the application. Learned counsel took the Court through the averments made in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and submitted that perusal thereof demonstrates that the intent of the defendants was to get the suit 3 dismissed on the basis of the defence and it is settled law that in the course of the decision of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court is not to travel beyond the plaint or the documents appended therewith. Accordingly, they submitted that as there was no infirmity in the impugned order, petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the plaint and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. In terms of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, a prayer was made for the dismissal of the Civil Suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs were asserting the right to file the suit to challenge the sale deed dated 04.01.2018 in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 by asserting that defendant No.2 had no right to sell the property to defendant No.1, whereas, in Para-2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs had specifically admitted the factum of the partition, which took place between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 in the year 2009. Besides this, it was also mentioned in the application that the 4 plaintiffs had concealed material facts including the fact that they had sold their shares by way of three distinct sale deeds. 6. On the other hand, a perusal of the reply to the said application inter alia demonstrates that it was stated therein that the filing of the application was nothing but an abuse of the process of the law for the reason that same was fulfilling the parameters of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. As per the plaintiffs, as the defendants had failed to file written statement within the prescribed period, the filing of the application was nothing but an attempt to linger on the matter. Other averments made in the application was also denied in the reply by the plaintiffs by averring that same were false, baseless and misconceived. 7. In terms of the impugned order, learned Trial Court has dismissed the application by inter alia holding that the plaint did disclose a cause of action, more so, as the plaintiffs being co- owner of the suit property in terms of the revenue record could not be said to be someone who had no cause of action to file and maintain the suit. Learned Trial Court also held that the phrase does not discloses the cause of action has to be very narrowly 5 construed and rejection of the plaint at the threshold entails serious consequences and the power has to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. 8. This Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of the case, the order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted with. A perusal of the plaint demonstrates that the plaintiffs therein had approached the Court seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 04.01.2018 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. Further decree of permanent prohibitory injunction has been sought for restraining defendant No.1 from selling, alienating, encumbering or creating any third party interest on the entire three storeyed structure built upon the suit land, details whereof are given in the plaint. 9. In terms of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code a plaint is liable to be inter alia rejected on the ground in case the plaintiffs does not disclose any cause of action or the same is barred by law. Cause of action as has been held in innumerable cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 6 is nothing but a bundle of facts which a party has to prove in order to obtain a decree in its favour. 10. While deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has to peruse the contents of the plaint as well as documents appended therewith and the defence of the defendants is not to be taken into consideration while coming to the conclusion as to whether the plaint is hit by the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 or not. 11. In this backdrop, if one peruses the plaint, one finds that in terms of the averments made therein the plaintiffs have been able to make out a cause of action i.e., illegal sale of the premises by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. According to the plaintiffs, the illegal sale was executed in terms of the sale deed dated 04.01.2018. This Court is not even remotely suggesting that the averments as are made in the plaint have merit or not because that is for the learned Court to decide on the basis of the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence that may be led by the parties in support of their respective contentions. 7 11. All that this Court is observing is that a perusal of the plaint demonstrates that a cause of action has been culled out on the basis of the pleadings therein and, therefore, the same does not deserve dismissal under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit ought to be decided in terms of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and dismissal thereof under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is not warranted for in the light of the contents of the suit. 12. As far as the contention of the learned counsel, that erroneous findings have been returned by the learned Trial Court to the effect that the plaintiffs are a co-owner of the suit property are concerned, obviously, as these findings were only returned for the purpose of deciding of the application, the interest of the petitioner can be protected by observing that as far as the adjudication of the suit is concerned, the same shall be strictly on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence and the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation made in the impugned order or by this Court in the course of deciding the said application. 8 13. Accordingly, in light of the observations made hereinabove and this Court does not find any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 01, 2025 (Vinod)