HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on:08.08.2025 Pronounced on:14.08.2025 Case No.:- CM(M) No. 222/2025 Basanti Kaul, age 70 years D/o Sh. Rattan Lal Kaul, R/o H. No. 20, Lane No. 2, Bhawani Nagar, Gole Pulli, Jammu at present Tower 2, Flat No. 305, Royal Apartments Hajuri Bagh, Jammu. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. C.M. Koul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.R. Bhat, Advocate. Vs S. Jagmohan Singh S/o S. Kehar Singh R/o Bhagwati Nagar, Canal Road (Near Power House) Jammu, Door No. 10384, Ward No. 014. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jamrodh Singh, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order dated 08.07.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Jammu whereby application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. 2. It appears that a civil suit, challenging the Sale Deed dated 18.07.1999, came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent 2 CM(M) No. 222/2025 herein against the defendant/petitioner herein before the court of learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as “trial court”) wherein it was pleaded by the plaintiff/ respondent herein that the said Sale Deed, purported to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant/petitioner herein in respect of land measuring 6 marlas in khasra No. 155 min situated at Nawabad, Jammu, is forged. In the plaint, it was also pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent herein that he had come to know about the forgery of the impugned Sale Deed two days prior to the drafting of the plaint and, therefore, cause of action had arisen in his favour on the said date. 3. It seems that an application was made by the petitioner/defendant before the learned trial court seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not conform to the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 1(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as no particulars relating to the date on which cause of action has arisen, is mentioned in the plaint. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application of the defendant/petitioner herein in terms of the impugned order dated 08.07.2025. 3 CM(M) No. 222/2025 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Order VII Rule 1(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff is required to specifically mention as to when cause of action had arisen in his favour, which means that he has to mention the actual date on which cause of action has arisen in his favour. He has contended that in the plaint, it is not mentioned as to on what date the plaintiff has approached the office of Sub-Registrar to gather knowledge about the forgery of the impugned Sale Deed nor has he mentioned as to on which date he actually came to know about the existence of the impugned Sale Deed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the trial of suit is complete and the same is pending for final arguments and, as such, at this belated stage the application of the defendant/petitioner herein cannot be considered. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 7. There is no cavil to the legal position that power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be resorted to at any stage of the suit from the time of institution of the suit and till the conclusion of the trial. Once it is shown that plaintiff has failed to disclose cause of action in the 4 CM(M) No. 222/2025 plaint or it is shown that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by any law or for any other reason as contained in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint can be rejected. 8. The question whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be considered by the trial court after the conclusion of the trial came to be considered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of “M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd Vs. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd and anr”, Civil Appeal No. 4570/2023 decided on 11.09.2024. Paras 15 and 16 of the said judgment are relevant to the context and the same are reproduced as under: “15. It is already a clarified position of law that without disposing of an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the court cannot proceed with the trail. When this is the position of law and the purpose of the provision is also settled, then, we see no reason for the right of the defendant to raise such a plea at a far belated stage such as final arguments or nearing conclusion of the trail. Allowing such pleas to be raised after the trail has proceeded so far would not only defeat the intent of the provision but would also go against the principle of equity and would lead to wastage of the court resources. Additionally, allowing such rights to survive till eternity only act as a catalyst for the defendant to misuse the provision to prolong or delay the trail and abuse the process of law. 5 CM(M) No. 222/2025 16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in particular, having noticed the conduct of the defendant-respondents as recorded by the Trial Court and also the fact that full trial had already been concluded as both the parties had already closed their evidence and the matter was ripe for final arguments, consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 was rightly declined by the Trial Court. The High Court erred in allowing the same and rejecting the plaint.” 9. From the foregoing enunciation of law, it is clear that right of the defendant/petitioner herein to raise plea for rejection of the plaint, if allowed to be entertained at the conclusion of trial, would defeat the intent of the provision and the same would also go against the principle of equity. 10. In the instant case, admittedly the trial of the suit has concluded and the suit is set down for final hearing. Therefore, if the application of the defendant/petitioner herein for rejection of the plaint is entertained at this stage, it would only defeat the purpose for which the provisions under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been incorporated, which is to weed out the frivolous cases at the very inception. It would only lead to delay in disposal of the suit, which is ripe for final decision. 6 CM(M) No. 222/2025 11. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner/defendant to raise the plea with regard to non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint before the learned trial court at the time of final hearing of the suit and if and when such a plea is raised by the petitioner/defendant, the same shall be dealt with by the said court in accordance with law along with other issues that may have been framed by the learned trial court, without getting influenced by the observation made by the said court in the impugned order. 12. Disposed of accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 14.08.2025 Naresh/Secy. Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: Yes … Naresh Kumar 2025.08.14 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document