Court No. 6 (265719) 02.09.2026 (AD 29) (S. Banerjee) CO 2762 of 2026 Tangudu Jagannadham Vs. Tangudu Suresh & Ors. Mr. Tirthankar Das …for the petitioner Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri Mr. Debraj Dutta …for the opposite-party no. 1 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the proforma defendant and is directed against the order dated July 17, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 609 of 2023. By the order impugned the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the proforma defendant, stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit is barred under the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. He further submits that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in course of his argument made an attempt to place reliance upon an order passed on an application for amendment in a previously instituted partition suit in 2 support of his contention that the instant suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is now well-settled while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code only the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, can be looked into. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order passed in the amendment application in the partition suit forms part of the plaint. The learned trial judge after considering the materials on record noted that the plaintiff/opposite- party no. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and prayed for a declaration that he is the owner of a specific number of shares of ITC limited as specifically mentioned in the prayer of the plaint and has prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 2 to transfer those shares in the D-Mat account of the plaintiff/opposite-party. The learned trial judge also recorded that in the previously instituted partition suit though the 644 number of shares, which is the subject-matter of the instant suit, were included, but the same were specifically excluded from the subject-matter of the partition suit by an order of the Court. 3 The learned trial judge, in the considered view of this Court, was right in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this civil revision application stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)