Serial No. 17 Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CR 25/2025 CM(3533/2025) Caveat 1156/2025. MUBEENA PARVEEN AND ORS.(SENIOR CITIZEN). …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Jan, Advocate. VERSUS MOHAMMAD IQBAL BHAT AND ANR. Through: Mr. Ruaani Ah Baba, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 25.07.2025 01. The petitioners have challenged Order dated 5th of May, 2025 passed by the learned court of Munsiff, Anantnag, whereby their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents-plaintiffs has been dismissed. 02. Heard and considered. 03. It appears that the respondents-plaintiffs have filed a suit against the petitioners-defendants seeking a Permanent Prohibitory Injunction before the learned Trial court i.e. court of learned Munsiff, Anantnag. In the plaint, it has been alleged that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of land measuring 8 Marlas and 6 Sersai under Survey No. 1073/989/916/33 situated at Mouza Sarnal Tehsil and District Anantnag with its frontage towards K.P. Road, Anantnag. It has been further pleaded that the defendants have no right or concern with the suit land. According to the plaintiffs they had applied for permission for raising construction on the suit land which is under process and that they have dumped some building material on spot. It is also alleged that the petitioners-defendants without any justification have stolen some wooden items from the spot and on 25.06.2022 they have caused interference on the spot which has given rise to cause of action for filing the suit before the trial court. It has also been pleaded that the defendants were asked not to cause any interference in the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession of the suit property but they are causing interference and have also harassed the plaintiffs on spot. 04. It appears that the learned trial court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the same is devoid of any merit. 05. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned trial court has not appreciated the legal position on the issue. According to the learned counsel, there is difference between the cause of action and disclosure of cause of action in the plaint and in the instant case, the respondents-plaintiffs have not disclosed any cause of action, inasmuch as the necessary particulars regarding the reasons as to why the petitioners/defendants are interfering into their possession are not mentioned in the plaint and it is also not mentioned as to what is the status of the defendants. 06. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), vests power with the trial court to reject the plaint on certain grounds. One of the grounds on which the plaint can be rejected is that if it does not disclose the cause of action. Cause of action is a bundle of facts, that are pleaded by the plaintiff which if traversed by the defendant, are necessary to be proved by the plaintiff to entitle him to a judgement against the defendant. 07. In the instant case, plaintiffs have clearly pleaded that they are owners in possession of the aforesaid suit land. They have clearly stated that the respondents-defendants have no concern with the suit property. It is specifically mentioned in the plaint that on 26.06.2022, defendants tried to interfere in the suit land and when they were asked not to do so, they continued their interference and harassed the plaintiffs. These are the facts which, if traversed by the defendants, would have to be established by the plaintiffs by leading evidence to entitle them to a judgement against the defendants. Nothing more was required to be pleaded by the plaintiffs for disclosure of cause of action in their favour. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners are without any substance. 08. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The instant petition lacks merits and is dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 25.07.2025 Showkat Khan