- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2018 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI S L RAJESH S/O LATE S L NARAYANASA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.138(8/1), SANTHUSAPETE, 7TH CROSS, SULTANPETE BENGALURU - 560 053. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KALLEGOWDA S K., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SURESH T HEGADE S/O SRI THIMMAPPA G HEGADE AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.74, ANUGRHA 9TH MAIN ROAD, SRIRAMPURAM BENGALURU-560021. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHAT RAMACHANDRA GANAPATI, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN OS No.8263/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CIVIL & SESSION, C/c.XXX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU , ALLOWING THE IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff has preferred this Regular First Appeal assailing the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-31), Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) on I.A.No.II. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the plaint on the application-I.A.No.II filed by the defendant/respondent under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. Plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, henchmen or anyone through him from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and further restraining the defendant from demolishing the industrial sheds put up by the plaintiff therein. It is averred that the sale deed dated 19.02.2016 executed in favour of the defendant was only a nominal document, never - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 intended to be acted upon, and was executed solely as security for a loan transaction between the parties. It is further averred that the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs.36,48,000/- from the defendant, and the suit property was mortgaged by way of security for the said loan. 4. The defendant filed application I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff and his family members had executed a registered sale deed dated 19.02.2016 in favour of the defendant and the possession of the suit property had also been handed over to the defendant. The Trial Court placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead, through legal representatives and others1 (Dahiben) and applied the principle that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC, the averments in the plaint alone are to be looked into. Observing that the plaintiff failed to disclose the cause of action and that the suit appeared to be 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 manifestly vexatious, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the plaint filed for permanent injunction. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the sale deed dated 19.02.2016 executed in favour of the respondent was not intended to be a sale in its true sense but was executed merely as a nominal document to secure a loan of Rs.36,48,000/- from the defendant. It is submitted that despite the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the suit property and cause of action arose when the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and attempted to demolish the industrial shed. It is further argued that the plaint discloses a triable issue and the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint without affording an opportunity of hearing on merits. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the findings of the Trial Court and submits that the plaintiff himself admits to having executed a registered sale deed along with his family members in favour of the defendant and also admits to having received consideration. The possession was handed over to the defendant. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 submitted that the suit for bare injunction, without seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed or declaration of title, is not maintainable. The Trial Court has rightly concluded that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action?” 8. The averments in the plaint clearly show that the plaintiff admits to the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant. In the absence of a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed or declaration that the sale is nominal or not binding, a mere suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. The plaint, on its face, does not disclose any enforceable legal right in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant. The Trial Court has rightly applied the ratio laid down in Dahiben stated supra, wherein it was held that a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action or is manifestly vexatious or meritless can be rejected at the threshold under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC. The Apex Court in Dahiben has observed at paragraph No.23 has held 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; (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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 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." (emphasis supplied) 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 C 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 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 time of 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 plaint³, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 23.7. Under 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 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, 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." (emphasis supplied) 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 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 merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. 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 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. the Court further held 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 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". 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. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case?. 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. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 9. Thus, it is clear from Order VII Rule 11 CPC that it serves as a crucial filter in civil litigation, enabling Courts to terminate proceedings at the threshold where the plaintiff’s case, even if accepted in its entirety, fails to disclose any cause of action or is barred by law, either expressly or by implication. Thus, from the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the authoritative decisions of the Apex Court, the law is well settled that there is a bounden duty on the Court to discern and identify fictitious suits, which on the face of it would be barred but for clever pleadings disclosing a cause of action that is surreal. 10. Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC mandates rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. In the instant case, when the plaintiff contends that the registered sale deed is nominal or sham, alleging that it was executed only as a security for a loan, the plaintiff must seek appropriate declaratory relief. A suit solely for injunction, without seeking declaration of the sale deed as void and not binding, is not maintainable and hence, the suit was liable to be rejected. The Trial Court on appreciation has rejected the plaint and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29600 RFA No. 2018 of 2022 accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) The order dated 26.09.2022 in O.S.No.8263/2016 on I.A.No.II passed by the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-31), Bangalore City, stands confirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9