Judgment : B.L. Yadav 1. BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14th January, 1986 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) holding on issue no 2 that the plaintiff-petitioners had no cause of action to file the suit. 2. THE petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Reoti Prasad Sharma and Shiv Charan Das, respondents 2 and 3, from transferring the land in dispute indicated by tetters A, B, C, D. A pedigree has been given in para 2 of the plaint showing Pt. Ram Chandra as the head of the joint Hindu family and Smt. Kastoori his wife who predeceased him. THE property was acquired by Smt, Kastoori Devi. Thereafter, it was inherited by her husband Pt. Ram Chandra, the grand-father of the petitioners. Pt. Ram Chandra had executed a gift deed in favour of Reoti Prasad Sharma and Shiv Charan Das. That gift deed is operative. THE petitioners allege that being the sons of Shiv Charan Das, they are also co-owners of the property. Consequently, the injunction was prayed for. Two issues were framed (i) in respect of sufficiency of the court fees and (ii) whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action to file the suit. Both the issues were decided as preliminary issues. The Munsif decided these issues against the defendants 2 and 3 against which they preferred a revision and by the impugned order the District Judge has held that in view of the principles of old Hindu Law after the death of Smt. Kastoori Devi, who had purchased the property, it was inherited by her husband Pt. Ram Chandra and he executed a gift deed in favour of Shiv Charan Das and Reoti Prasad Sharma, the father and uncle of the petitioners and hence the plaintiff -petitioners shall have no cause of action in respect of the property in dispute, as father and uncle were alive. Against that order the present petition has been filed. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners had the cause of action in respect of the property in dispute. The expression 'cause of action' is used under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short the Code) and Order II Rule 2 and has wide connotation. Against that order the present petition has been filed. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners had the cause of action in respect of the property in dispute. The expression 'cause of action' is used under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short the Code) and Order II Rule 2 and has wide connotation. The learned District Judge has illegally held that the petitioners had no cause of action and that would amount as if the petitioners' suit had been dismissed, and the result is that the court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 4. LEARNED counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 urged that the issue in respect of cause of action was correctly decided, as the petitioners being the members of joint Hindu Family shall have no cause of action. He further urged that some other litigation between the parties has been pending and he pointed out that First Appeal No. 104 of 1988 Shiv Charan Das v. Reoti Prasad Sharma is still pending. The present petitioners' father has been arrayed as appellant. The record of that appeal was obtained from the office of this Court and the same was perused by me. It was further urged that during the pendency of the aforesaid First Appeal and during the life time of their father, the petitioners shall have no cause of action. Reliance was placed on Smt. Raj Kumari Kapoor v. Civil Judge, Kanpur, 1987 AWC 235 , and T. Arivandanam v. T. V. Stryapal, AIR 1987 SC 2421 . Learned counsel for the parties suggested that the petition may be decided on merits. This is how this petition is being disposed of on merits. 5. HAVING scrutinised the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the principal question is as to whether the petitioners have 'cause of action' which simply means a right to sue, (to file the suit). Before proceeding further, the connotation of the expression 'cause of action' may be ascertained. It simply means the whole of the material facts which are imperative for the plaintiff to allege and prove. But it did not include every fact which may be proved in evidence. At the same time, it has no. relation which the defendant might be required to prove. It simply means the whole of the material facts which are imperative for the plaintiff to allege and prove. But it did not include every fact which may be proved in evidence. At the same time, it has no. relation which the defendant might be required to prove. To pat it differently, it is the bundle of facts which the plaintiff would be required to prove to get relief prayed for. It is the foundation of the suit and gives occasion for the same. See Sidare Meppa v. Raja Shetty, AIR 1970 SC 1059 , and Mohd. Hafiz v. Zakaria, AIR 1922 PC 23, Section 20 CPC Order 2 Rule 2. However, this may be stated that the cause of action is a term of varying and doubtful meaning. The Courts have not been able to give a precise definition. 6. IN Corpus Juris Secondum Volume I Para 8 (a) on page 981-82, there is following statement:- "The term is used in different senses, depending upon the subject to which it is applied, or the object which it is to subserve ; it has a technical and primary definition, although in practice it has also acquired a much wider secondary and colloquial meaning it may be defined so as to comprehend the legal conception of it as well an to furnish a guide as a rule of pleading and a means of solving the troublesome question so often arising touching the question whether one or more causes are stated or involved in a statement, in some contexts importing the impairment of a legal interest or the violation of a duty, in others, the existence of a remedial right to ascertain, through the judgment of the court, whether a wrong has been done or injury sustained. A cause of action has been briefly defined, in a general sense, as a claim which may be enforced matter for which an action may be brought the subject matter of controversy the subject, matter upon which plaintiff grounds his right of recovery the ground on which an action may be maintained or sustained that which produces or affects the result complained of or which produces the necessity for bringing the action, the ground or reason for the action." Having perused the plaint and the impugned order, it is obvious that in respect of ancestral property some earlier litigation was also pending in the shape of First Appeal No. 134 of 1988-Shiv Charan Sharma v. Reoti Prasad Sharma-and the petitioners were also parties as appellants 2 and 3 and as the property was acquired by Smt. Kastoori Devi and after her death it was inherited by her husband, who executed a gift deed in favour of Shiv Charan Das and Reoti Prasad Sharma, the father and uncle of the petitioners. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have no cause of action to file the suit. 7. IN the case of T. Arivandanam v. T. V. Satyapal (supra) it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., that in case a suit does not disclose a cause of action, which obviously means a right to sue. the Court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by rejecting the plaint. It is the imperative duty of (he Court to ascertain if necessary, by examining the parties under Order X Rule 2 of the Code to see that frivolous and vexatious suit is not brought to the Court. The observation in this regard under paragraph 5 is as follows:- "The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful not formal- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, Rule 2, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits." 8. And, if clear, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, Rule 2, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits." 8. APPLYING the above observations to the bare reading of the plaint, in my opinion, the plaint does not disclose a clear right to sue. In that event the learned Munsif ought to have examined the parties so as to arrive at the conclusion whether the plaintiffs have any clear cause of action and whether they have a right to sue, but the learned Munsif failed to do so. In such matters, the duty of the Judge was that he should insist imperatively under Order X Rule 2 of the code by examining the plaintiff and deft. So as to ascertain the nature of the litigation and as to whether the plaintiffs have got a clear right to sue. In the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Kapoor v. Civil Judge, Kanpur (supra), it was also pointed out by a learned single Judge of this Court that it is the duty of the Court to ascertaing by reading of the plaint and by examining the parties under Order X Rule 2 of the Code as to whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action and whether the sust has some merit and is maintainable. 9. HAVING scrutinsed the plaint and having considered the nature of the property and the nature of the acquisition in favour of Smt. Kastoori Devi and in view of the pendency of the First Appeal, I am of the view that the plaintiff-petitioners have no cause of action. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous. 14 In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.