JUDGMENT : RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA, J. 1. The present First Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.06.2017, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (Senior Division), Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 122 of 2015, whereby the said suit, while hearing on the point of admission, has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff-appellant instituted the suit for declaration of title against the State of Bihar in respect of 21 acres 90 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 480 under Khata No. 284, situated at Mauja–Kasba, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land originally belonged to ex-landlord Surya Mohan Thakur, who settled the same in favour of Kedar Nath Joshi by Raiyati Kabuliyat (Hukumnama) dated 31.12.1925 and delivered possession, thereafter continuing to realise rent and grant rent receipts in his favour. It is further stated that at the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar, the ex-landlord submitted returns wherein the land was recorded in the name of the said raiyat, and accordingly the estate vested in the State. The plaintiffs further assert that having remained away from the locality when they visited the Anchal Office on 01.09.2015 for payment of arrears of rent they were informed by the Halka Karamchari that the jamabandi of the suit land stood recorded in the name of the Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, whereupon rent was refused and they were threatened with dispossession from the suit land. 3. The learned Sub-Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, while considering the plaint at the stage of admission in Title Suit No. 122/2015, rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.). The Court found that the plaintiffs’ claim of title and possession over the suit land was unsupported by reliable records. It observed that the certified copy of the return relied upon by the plaintiffs was a suspicious document and upon verification from the Collector, Bhagalpur, it was reported that no such return had been issued from that office. The court further noted discrepancies in the khata/khesra details and held that there was no rent receipt or document in the plaintiffs’ favour after vesting of the Zamindari indicating that they ever acquired possession over the suit land. The court further noted discrepancies in the khata/khesra details and held that there was no rent receipt or document in the plaintiffs’ favour after vesting of the Zamindari indicating that they ever acquired possession over the suit land. The Court held the suit to be meritless and not fit to be admitted. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected with costs of ?1,00,000/-, payable to the Legal Services Authority, Bhagalpur. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is wholly illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and perverse. It was contended that it is a settled principle of law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the Court is confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto and nothing beyond the same can be looked into. It was further argued that, at this stage, every statement made in the plaint is required to be treated as true and correct and the Court must proceed on that basis alone. Any dispute or controversy between the parties cannot be adjudicated at this stage and necessarily requires a full-fledged trial based on evidence adduced by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the direction contained in the impugned order imposing cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the Legal Services Authority, Bhaglapur is wholly arbitrary, excessive and unsustainable in law. It was contended that the power to award costs must be exercised judiciously, reasonably and upon sound legal principles and not in a punitive manner. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the concerned Court, while rejecting the plaint and refusing admission of the suit, has travelled beyond the scope and jurisdiction vested under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in the eye of law. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karam Singh vs. Amarjit Singh & Ors.,  2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240 , wherein at paragraph 15 it has been held as follows: “Before we assess the correctness of the impugned orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Here, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e. suit barred by law). Here, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e. suit barred by law). Clause (d) makes it clear that while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint.” 6. The said paragraph clearly lays down that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the Court has to confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint alone and cannot take into consideration the defence of the opposite party or any extraneous material, and the question as to whether the suit is barred by law must be determined only on the basis of the plaint itself. 7. Further reliance has been placed by learned senior counsel for the appellant in the case of on M. Gurudas & Ors. vs. Rasaranjan & Ors. MANU/SC/8491/2006, wherein at paragraph 24, it has been held as under: “The plaint in question could not have been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court at that stage could not have gone into any disputed question of fact. In other words, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court must proceed on the basis that the averments made in the plaint are true and correct.” 8. The aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court further clarifies that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and the Court is bound to proceed on the assumption that the averments made in the plaint are true, leaving all such issues to be decided only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of evidence. 9. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it was argued that the rejection of the plaint by the Court below is legally untenable and liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it was argued that the rejection of the plaint by the Court below is legally untenable and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside, the present First Appeal be allowed and the suit be restored to its original file with a direction to the learned Court below to admit the plaint and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent State has supported the impugned order and submits that the same is in accordance with law and does not warrant interference from this Court. 11. Having heard learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the records available on the file, the point for consideration before this Court is whether the order passed by the Court below is just, proper, tenable and in accordance with law. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court will first briefly discuss the law applicable for deciding an application Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., which reads as under:-- “11. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court will first briefly discuss the law applicable for deciding an application Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., 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 returned 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-paper 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- paper, 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.” 13. It is a well-settled proposition of law that for the purpose of determining whether a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the C.P.C. discloses a cause of action, the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint alone. The plaint is required to be read as a whole, taking all the statements therein to be true and correct, without any addition or subtraction and without reference to any external material. If a plaint presents a bundle of facts that establish a potential case, the Court cannot, at the preliminary stage, act as a trial Court to decide whether those facts are true or false. At this stage, no reliance can be placed on the defence of the defendant, nor can the Court look into any documents, reports, or materials beyond those forming part of the plaint. At this stage, no reliance can be placed on the defence of the defendant, nor can the Court look into any documents, reports, or materials beyond those forming part of the plaint. The scope of inquiry is thus limited to examining whether, on a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, a right to sue is disclosed, and if such a right is evident, the plaint ought not to be rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that in order to consider an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit. What needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the averments of the plant. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 , in paragraph No. 9, it was held as under: “9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. Neeradha Reddy, (2015) 8 SCC 331 has held that the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. Neeradha Reddy, (2015) 8 SCC 331 has held that the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karam Singh vs. Amarjit Singh & Ors. (supra) has further held that while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint. 17. In the present case, however, while adjudicating upon the question of rejection of the plaint, the learned court below transgressed the settled limits of its jurisdiction by calling for rent receipts from the Collector for the purpose of verification, an exercise which squarely falls within the domain of trial and is wholly impermissible at the stage of consideration under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. It is a well-entrenched principle, consistently reiterated in numerous pronouncements of the Apex Court that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments contained in the plaint alone. Any enquiry beyond the plaint, including the calling for external materials or undertaking evidentiary verification, is impermissible at this preliminary stage. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 24.06.2017, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (Senior Division), Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 122 of 2015 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Court below to decide it afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.