- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2213 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. VIJAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O VENKATAWAMAPPA, R/AT NO.109/B ANUGRAHA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, C.P. LAYOUT, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560094. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SAIPRAKASH V. SURYAVANSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. NTI EMPLOYEE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.84, SUN SMILE 1ST FLOOR, SERPENTINE ROAD BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH CROSS ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENT THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.VI IN O.S.NO.3766/2022 ON THE FILE OF LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU., ALLOWING THE IA NO.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 14.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.VI in O.S. No.3766/2022, on the file of LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application-I.A.No.VI filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint came to be allowed and the plaint was rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaint, on its face, disclosed a clear cause of action. It is neither barred by law, nor can it be termed as frivolous or vexatious, since the relief sought are legally sustainable and permissible. It is further contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record before rejecting the plaint. It is specifically urged that the plaint contains categorical - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 averments asserting the plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property, which is claimed to have been acquired under the registered release deed dated 21.04.2019, coupled with the final decree passed in O.S. No.45/2019, dated 30.12.2010. Along with these, the plaintiff has produced relevant documents evidencing her lawful possession over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the plaint merely on the premise that the plaintiff had allegedly suppressed the fact of acquisition of the land by the Government of Karnataka in the year 1986, which acquisition, according to the Trial Court, had not been challenged by the land owners. The rejection of the plaint on this basis is wholly unsustainable, in law, particularly when the averments in the plaint, if taken as true, in its entirety, do disclose a cause of action. It is further submitted that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was genuinely unaware of any acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit schedule property by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 Government. The plaintiff had no access to any public record or notification disclosing such acquisition. It is a settled principle that suppression of facts under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC must necessarily involve an element of deliberate concealment with malafide intention. Mere ignorance or absence of knowledge on the part of the plaintiff cannot, by itself, be treated as suppression. It is urged that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the objections filed by the plaintiff to the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court has erroneously placed emphasis on the law declared by the Apex Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through LRs and others1 (Dahiben), without properly applying it to the facts of the present case. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 is to ensure that if a plaint discloses no cause of action, or if the suit is barred by law, the same may be rejected at the threshold, so as to prevent sham litigation and avoid 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 protracted proceedings. However, in the present case, the plaint on its very face discloses a cause of action and is not barred by limitation. The rejection of the plaint based merely on allegations made by the defendant is wholly unsustainable. The Court below has failed to bear in mind that, as held by the Apex Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Others2 (Sopan Sukhdeo), the power under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC may be invoked only if, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found to be manifestly vexatious, without merit, disclosing no right to sue. It has been further clarified that the plaint cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the defendant's allegation or averment in the written statement. Therefore, when the plaint contains specific averments regarding the plaintiff's claim of title under the release deed and final decree, supported by documents, the trial Court ought not to have summarily rejected the plaint. 2 (2004) 3 SCC 137 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 4. The Trial Court upon consideration found that the plaint did not disclose a genuine cause of action. Though the plaintiff pleaded ownership based on release deed and the final decree in O.S. No.45/2019, these documents would not confer valid title since the suit schedule property had already been acquired by the Government of Karnataka in the year 1986 and vested in the entire NTI Housing Cooperative Society. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had suppressed the material fact by not disclosing the acquisition notification and it noted that the decree in earlier partition suit was obtained despite the land already vested with the Government, amounting to playing a fraud on the Court. The trial Court, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dahiben, held that if the plaint discloses no cause of action, or is barred by law, it must be rejected at the threshold. At this stage, the contentions of the defendant in the written statement are irrelevant, only the plaint and the documents relied upon there are to be considered. On - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 a meaningful reading, the Trial Court held that the plaint was found to be vexatious and merit less, as the relief sought was legally unsustainable and thus, the trial Court held that the plaint deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC as been barred by law and allowed I.A.No.VI and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. 5. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 6. Having heard, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC and whether the same warrants any interference?” 7. The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant-NTI Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., contending that she is in peaceful possession - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having constructed small sheds and a shop, which she has rented out. She asserts that her title and possession over the suit schedule property is on basis of a registered release deed dated 21.04.2019 executed in her favour, which flows from final decree in O.S. No.45/2009 dated 30.12.2010. According to her, the defendant-society attempted to interfere unlawfully with her possession, necessitating the filing of the present suit. 8. The underlining principle, while considering Order VII Rule 11, as repeatedly held by the Apex Court, is that Order VII Rule 11 is a special and mandatory remedy to terminate sham or legally barred actions at the threshold, on a meaningful reading of the plaint with the documents relied on by the plaintiff, without being drawn into the defence case or a trial on facts. 9. In Dahiben’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that even at the stage of considering an - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court can examine whether the plaint averments are self- contradictory or contrary to the documents relied upon, and laid down the following guidelines at paragraph No.23, as under: “23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the plaint and documents filed therewith, as also the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. 23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: “11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. 23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (1986 Supp SCC 315) this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 the court, in the following words: (SCC p. 324, para 12) “12. … The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.” 23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint [(2004) 9 SCC 512], - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 23.7. Order 7 Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under: “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.—(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross- examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. 23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration [(2004) 3 SCC 137]. 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [(2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads as: (SCC p. 562, para 139) “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.” 23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. [(2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [(1999) 3 SCC 267]. 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 23.14. The power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557]. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case [1986 Supp SCC 315]. 23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint.” 10. It is a settled proposition of law that the defendant’s plea in the written statement or in an application under Order VII Rule 11 cannot form the foundation for rejection of the plaint. Equally, however, where the statutory framework itself renders the relief legally unavailable, the Court is not helpless merely because the plaint omits the inconvenient fact. 11. In the instant case, the gazette notification and the acts of the State evidencing land acquisition are public documents. The Court can take the judicial notice of such notifications and presume their genuineness. This does not - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 amount to relying on a disputed defence, but rather to acknowledging an undisputed legal backdrop that governs the plaintiff's claimed right. Where the plaintiff asserts title/possession over a parcel of land described with specificity, and the statute vests that very parcel in the State or its beneficiary government, the Court can indeed must apply the statute, for the law travels with the facts pleaded. 12. Thus, even accepting the plaint averments at its highest, the relief claimed stands fore closed by the statute, the cause of action is illusory as held by the Apex Court in the Dahiben’s case such suits must be ‘nipped in the bud’. The appellant's submission that the plaintiff was “unaware” of acquisition, and hence there was no “suppression”, is beside the point of Rule 11 (d) of Order VII. Rejection here turns not on malafide concealment but on whether, even if the plaint averments are taken as true, the suit is barred by law. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 13. The Trial Court’s references to the acquisition proceedings/notifications merely acknowledge the undisputed statutory milieu governing the land described in the plaint, they do not amount to fact-finding on a disputed defence. Where the bar flows directly from the statute, applied by the plaint's own description of the property and relief sought, sending the matter to trial would only waste judicial time- the very mischief that Order VII Rule 11 is designed to prevent. Thus, the rejection under Order VII Rule 11 (d) is sustainable. The trial Court has rightly concluded that the suit as framed is barred by law and the cause of action pleaded is ‘illusionary’. No interference is warranted and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is dismissed. ii. The order dated 14.08.2025 on I.A. No.VI in O.S. No.3766/2022 passed by LXIII - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39383 RFA No. 2213 of 2025 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stands affirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9