Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1362 (DEL)

OMVATI VERMA v. SEHDAV SINGH TOMAR

2007-07-11

GITA MITTAL

body2007
JUDGMENT Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) - Mr. RM. Bagal, learned Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the defendants. Right at the outset, he submits that this Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to examine the plaint inasmuch as no cause of action is made out in the suit against any of the defendants. I have consequently heard learned Counsel for the parties and also examined the plaint in support of this B submission. It is noteworthy that the plaint is premised on the admission that the property No. A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was owned in its entity by the defendant No.2 who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff gifting the ground floor of this property to her. The plaintiff has contended that on 10th June, 1997, the defendant No. 2 has executed a gift deed in b favour of the plaintiff out of natural love and affection. This gift deed has been registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Delhi. The plaintiff has also urged that she is in exclusive possession of the ground floor of the suit property since the execution of the gift deed. 2. Paras 5-9 of the plaint contain certain details of litigation between the parties which include a criminal complaint filed by the defendant No. 2 on 27th September, 2003 against the plaintiff and legal proceedings arising therefrom. It is specifically admitted that on 10th September, 2004, the Delhi High Court directed the plaintiff and her husband to hand over the possession of the drawing room of the suit property to the defendant No.2. The plaintiff states that in pursuance of the said directions, the d plaintiff has handed over the possession of the drawing room on the ground floor of the suit property to the defendant No.2 on 13th September, 2004 and that the defendant No.2 continues to be in possession of the same even on date. It is also stated in the plaint that, thereafter, for the purposes of maintaining family peace and harmony, the plaintiff along with her family has shifted from the suit property to official! government accommodation. 3. The cause of action in the present suit is premised on events which according to the plaintiff transpired thereafter. It is also stated in the plaint that, thereafter, for the purposes of maintaining family peace and harmony, the plaintiff along with her family has shifted from the suit property to official! government accommodation. 3. The cause of action in the present suit is premised on events which according to the plaintiff transpired thereafter. It is contended that after the plaintiff shifted to the official accommodation, defendant No.1 who is stated to be the brother of Shri J.P.S. Verma, husband of the plaintiff misusing his official position by getting false and frivolous cases registered against the plaintiff utilising the shield of defendant No.2, who is a senior citizen. The plaintiff has also relied on a Writ Petition No. 2394-95/2005 filed by her in this Court praying for stay of proceedings pending against her before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and the orders dated 27th May, 2005 passed by this Court staying the proceedings before the trial Court. Be that as it may, according to the plaintiff, these proceedings are stayed and the matter is listed for 17th August, 2007 before the Bench hearing the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the plaintiff. 4. It has been stated that the suit has been necessitated on account of the evil design of the defendant No.1 to grab the suit property for which pressure has been put on the plaintiff. 5. It would be useful to set out in extenso the averments made by the plaintiff setting up the cause of action for filing this case which are contained in paras 13-18 of the plaint which read as follows: "13. That while shifting from the Ground Floor of the suit property to Official/Government accommodation at R.K. Puram, Delhi, the plaintiff left a double bed, almirah, cooler, dressing table and other valuable house-hold articles and also put the locks on the two rooms, kitchen, one toilet and one store. Thus, the plaintiff is in constructive and exclusive possession of the suit property. 14. That the defendants have evil design to grab the suit property thereby depriving the plaintiff of her legitimate right in the suit property. Thus, the plaintiff is in constructive and exclusive possession of the suit property. 14. That the defendants have evil design to grab the suit property thereby depriving the plaintiff of her legitimate right in the suit property. The defendant have put and/ or putting all kind of pressure on the plaintiff to vacate the portions which are in her possession so that the defendants can join the adjoining Property No. A-2/162, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi with the Property No. A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi from top to bottom. This is also apparent from the fact that the defendant No.1 have already joined 1st and 2nd floor of Property No. A-2/162, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi with the 1st and 2nd floor of the suit property. 15. That in furtherance to their mala fide intentions to grab the suit property, the defendant No. 2 sent a notice dated 1.6.200,7 to the plaintiff inter alia revoking the Gift Deed dated 10.6.1997 and directing the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the suit property to the defendant No.2 within 15 days. The contents of the said notice and totally false, vexatious, baseless and concocted. A copy of the said Legal Notice is annexed herewith as Annexure P-III. It is worth mentioning herein that in law the suit property gifted on 10.6.1997 cannot be revoked after ten years particularly when the defendant No.2 is alleging and is giving different reasons/versions for the execution of the gift deed. In the complainant dated 27.9.2003, the defendant No.2 is alleged to have executed the said gift deed on persuasion of the plaintiff and her husband and whereas in the notice dated 1.6.2006, the defendant No. 2 is alleging that the defendant No. 2 had executed the gift deed under undue influence of the plaintiff and her husband. The defendant No.2 is giving different versions at different forum for the execution of the said gift deed. The said plea of the defendant No.2 is not sustainable in law particularly the same is a registered document. 16. That from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the defendant No.1 and 3 are the real beneficiaries and they are putting the defendant No.2, who is about ninety years old, on the front but from behind the curtain it is the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 who are indulging into the false and frivolous litigation against the plaintiff. 1 and 3 who are indulging into the false and frivolous litigation against the plaintiff. 17. That the defendants have all the intentions to deprive the plaintiff of her legitimate right in the suit property and/ or taking forcible possession of the ground floor of suit property and in case the defendants succeed in taking the law in their own hand, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in term of money. The apprehension of the plaintiff is not unfounded as the defendant No.1 is supposed to be a law enforce: but in the present case the defendant No.1 is a law breaker and the defendant No.1 is capable of taking the law in his hand with immunity and/ or can scoop to any level to achiheve his evil design. 18. That the cause of action for the filing of the present suit arose in year 1974 when the plaintiff, started living in the suit property. It further ~rose on 10.6.1997, when the defendant No. 2 executed a gift deed out of love and affection and without any pressure from any quarters, in favour of the plaintiff. It further arose 27.9.2003 when the defendant No.2 at the behest of defendant No.1 filed a false and fabricated complaint with the Sarojini Nagar Police Staiion and the concerned police officer refuse to take any action on the said complainant due to lack of evidence. It further arose some where in the month of October, 2003 when the defendant No.2 filed a criminal writ petition against the non-action of the police on the complaint of defendant No.2. It further arose on 10.9.2004 when the Honble Court was pleased to direct the concerned police officer to register the case on the complainant filed by the defendant No.2 and further directed the plaintiff to hand over the possession of one room that is the drawing room to defendant No.2. It further arose on 17.9.2004 when the F.I.R. Was registered against the plaintiff and her husband as per the direction of the Honble High Court. It further arose on 1.6.2007 when the defendant No. 2 sent a legal notice thereby revoking the said gift deed and asking the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the suit property to defendant No. 2 within 15 days. It further arose on 1.6.2007 when the defendant No. 2 sent a legal notice thereby revoking the said gift deed and asking the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the suit property to defendant No. 2 within 15 days. The cause of action is continuing basically since 27.9.2003 when the intention of the defendants became dishonest and in furtherance of their evil design, by various sources, put pressure on the plaintiff to give up her right in the suit property, which was created in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of the execution of the gift deed and in case the plaintiff failed to succumb to the pressure tactic then in that case take forcible possession of the suit property The cause of action is still continuing as the plaintiff apprehends that the defendants after the revocation of the gift deed will take the law in their own hand and may try to dispose the plaintiff without following the due process of law." 6. My attention has been drawn to the legal notice dated 1st June, 2007 on which the present suit is based which reads as follows: "1st June, 2007 1. Smt. Om Wati Verma W 10 Shri J.P.S. Verma Rio Quarter No. 1094, Sector-12, RK. Puram, New Delhi-110066. 2. Shri J.P.S. Verma S I 0 Shri M.S. Verma, Rio Quarter No. 1094, Sector-12, RK. Puram, New Delhi-ll0066. I hereby serve you with the following notice: 1. That on 10th June, 1997, you both notice got executed a purported gift deed in favour of notice No.1 under undue influence of both of you. The said gift deed was conditional and even those conditions have been breached by you. Even otherwise, the said purported gift deed is null and void ab initio and has no legal effect and has no binding effect. 2. The said gift deed was conditional and even those conditions have been breached by you. Even otherwise, the said purported gift deed is null and void ab initio and has no legal effect and has no binding effect. 2. That, however, as a matter of abundant precaution, I hereby expresssly revoke the said purported gift deed and call upon both of you Noticees to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the two rooms, kitchen, bathroom and backside verandah presently under your occupation on the Ground Floor of House No. A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi within two weeks of the receipt of this notice failing which I will be constrained to take appropriate legal proceedings against you for recovery of the possession of the said portion of said house entirely at your risk to cost and consequences." 7. Mr. RM. Bagai, learned Counsel for the defendants has urged that th~ bona fide of the defendants is apparent from the notice demand inasmuch as after cancelling the gift deed dated 10th September, 1997, the defendant No.2 being law abiding has only notified the plaintiff and her husband Shri J.P .5. Verma to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom and backside verandah of the ground floor of House No. A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi which are in their possession failing which he would be constrained to take appropriate legal proceedings against them for recovery of the possession of the said portion of the house. 8. Mr. Parag Chawla, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has raised an objection that this Court is required to call for a written statement from the defendants before examining the pleas taken by the plaintiff. In my view, such a position is totally misconceived and untenable. It is well settled that the provisions of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings. Consequently, it is open to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 to examine whether a cause of action has been made out in favour of the plaintiff enabling to the plaintiff to file and maintain a suit against the defendants. Consequently, it is open to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 to examine whether a cause of action has been made out in favour of the plaintiff enabling to the plaintiff to file and maintain a suit against the defendants. In fact in my view upon the defendant having brought such a position to the notice of this Court it would be the bounden duty of this C0urt to examine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action and an unnecessary lis is not permitted to occupy valuable judicial time. 9. It is also well settled by a catena of judicial precedents of the Honble Supreme Court of India that while exercising Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court can examine only the plaint and the documents which have been placed by the plaintiff in support of its contentions. In 2006 (86) DRJ 374 , Ajit Singh v. Ramesh Vohra & Anr., wherein the Court held that for the purposes of consideration of the issues as to whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not, all the pleadings in the plaint have to be treated as correct and the defence has not to be looked into. The Court emphasised the principle that the plaint had to be read meaningfully. 10. It is trite that every case has to be examined in the light of the facts averred in plaint by the plaintiff and no absolute principles governing such consideration can possibly be laid down. 11. Rejection of a plaint is undoubtedly a serious matter inasmuch as it would terminate the proceedings before the Court and tonsequent1y have serious repercussions on the rights of the parties. The same cannot be taken recourse to lightly and requires a serious consideration of the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. For this reason the Courts have emphasised that the pleadings have to be meaningfully read. In this behalf, it would be instructive to advert to the pronouncement reported in AIR 1984 Punjab & Haryana 126, Harnam Singh.v. Surjit Singh. 12. The distinction between a plaint disclosing no cause of action on the one hand and, the plaintiff having no cause of action on the other have to be borne in mind. In this behalf, it would be instructive to advert to the pronouncement reported in AIR 1984 Punjab & Haryana 126, Harnam Singh.v. Surjit Singh. 12. The distinction between a plaint disclosing no cause of action on the one hand and, the plaintiff having no cause of action on the other have to be borne in mind. The principles which would guide the Court in this consideration were elaborately laid down in a pronouncement of this Court reported at 88 (2000) DLT 769, Inspiration Clothes & U v. International Limited, It was held thus: "10. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned order, we are of the view that learned Single Judge proceeded on erroneous assumption that he was entitled to go into the merits of the controversy that whether the plaintiff had any cause of action against the defendant or not or that whether the plaintiffs suit against the defendant was or was not maintainable. Such an approach is erroneous. The plea of the defendant that there is no cause of action does not amount to the plea that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. A distinction must always be drawn between a plea that plaint does not disclose a cause of action and the plea that the plaintiff has no cause of action to sue. The grounds on which the plaint can be rejected are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, CPC. The first ground on which plaint can be rejected is that it does not disclose a cause of action. While considering the prayer to reject the plaint on ground, (a) of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC that the plaint discloses no cause of action, which is essentially a demurrer, the defendant must be taken to admit for the sake of argument that the allegations of the plaintiff in the plaint are true in manner and form. The power to reject the plaint on this can be exercised only if the Court come to the conclusion that even if all the allegations are taken to be proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever. The power to reject the plaint on this can be exercised only if the Court come to the conclusion that even if all the allegations are taken to be proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever. A distinction must, always be drawn between a case where the plaint on the face of it discloses no cause of action and another in which after considering the entire material on the record the Court come to the conclusion that there is 110 cause of action. In the first case the plaint can be rejected but in the latter case the plaint cannot be rejected. The suit has to be dismissed. Learned Single Judge adopted the second approach. This was not the stage where the Court was expected to enter into this controversy that whether there was a cause of action to the plaintiff against the defendant or not. No doubt that where the plaint is based on a document, the Court will be entitled to consider the said document also and ascertain if a cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, but validity of the document cannot be considered at this stage. To enable a Court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and documents accompanying the plaint only and nothing else. The Court, however, cannot look at the defence of the defendant or the documents relied upon by the defendant." 13. The principles which would guide the Court while exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC have been succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in III (2006) BC 156 (SC)=II (2006) SLT 612= (2006) 3 SCC 100 , Mayor (H.K) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express, wherein the Court laid down the applicable law stating as hereunder: "11. Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the Court has jurisdiction to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action, where the relief claimed is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected within the time as fixed by the Court, where insufficient Court fee is paid and the additional Court fee is not supplied within the period given by the Court, and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Rejection of the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code would be on consideration of the principles laid down by this Court. In T. Arivanandam v. T. V. Satyapal, this Court has held 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, the Court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill, this Court has helo that where the plaint discloses no cause of action, it is obligatory upon the Court to reject the plaint as a whole under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, but the rule does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint. Therefore, the High Court therein could not act under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code for striking down certain paragraphs in the absence of anything to show that the averments in those paragraphs are either unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious, or that they are such as may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the case, or constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is to find out whether the real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something illusory has been projected in the plaint with a view to get out of the said provision. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has held that the trial Court can exercise its powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code 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 and for the said purpose the averments in the plaint are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. In Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., this Court has culled out the legal ambit of Rule 11 of the Order 7 of the Code in these words (SCC p. 516, para 19): 19. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities. 12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint." 14. Therefore, it is only such facts which would give rise to a legitimate claim or relief in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants which would give it a right to file and maintain a suit against such a party. From the plaint and documents filed, the plaintiff has to show that he has an actionable remedy in law on the facts stated in the plaint read in conjunction with the documents. 15. Perusal of the plaint as noticed hereinabove shows that the plaintiff has based her suit on an alleged apprehension which arises from the legal notice dated 1st June, 2007. The suit has been filed on 13th June, 2007 and there is not a single instance which could make out the apprehension of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 2 shall take forcible possession of the property. Certainly a legal notice to hand over possession failing which, the defendant had stated, that he would initiate legal action, cannot be termed as such illegal threat as would raise to a cause of action to maintain a suit for injunction. For this reason, there is certainly nothing in the plaint as has been laid before this Court to show any basis for the alleged apprehension premised on the legal notice. 16. The plaintiff does not aver that she has even sent a reply to the legal notice. 17. So far as the defendant No.3 is concerned, there is not even a whisper of an allegation against the defendant No.3. Merely because he is another son of the defendant No.2 and a brother of the plaintiffs husband, does not give rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to implead defendant No.3 as a party / defendant in such a suit. 18. Merely because he is another son of the defendant No.2 and a brother of the plaintiffs husband, does not give rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to implead defendant No.3 as a party / defendant in such a suit. 18. So far as the defendant No.1 is concerned, the allegations which are noticed hereinabove are bald allegations which are not supported by any particulars or details. It is not the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendant No.1 is taking action by himself. The allegation is that he is utilising the shield of his father giving rise to the apprehensions of the plaintiff. From a perusal of the legal notice, it is evident that the defendant No.2 has taken the initiative of revoking and canceling the gift deed dated 10th June, 1997 in favour of the plaintiff and has stated that legal action would be taken. 19. Mr. Prag Chawla, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has also stated that the apprehensions of the forcible dispossession from the suit premises are also based on the action of the defendant No.1 in raising construction on the first floor which he has amalgamated with the ground floor premises. It is not the plaintiffs case that she is not located within the same station or that she does not visit the suit premises. Not a single date with regard to when the construction commenced or when it was completed has been mentioned. It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that she has raised no objection whatsoever to the construction and has not made any prayer with regard to such a construction at any time hitherto or in the present plaint. Certainly, it cannot be stated that the apprehensions of the plaintiff that she would be dispossessed by such action of the defendants are made out from the plaint. 20. The plaint is thus premised on totally vague and specific pleas which are not supported by any material on record. In the light of the aforenoticed position in law, it has to be held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and consequently deserves to be rejected. The litigation which has been initiated by the plaintiff is totally baseless and frivolous inasmuch as on the showing of the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. The litigation which has been initiated by the plaintiff is totally baseless and frivolous inasmuch as on the showing of the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities. 12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint." 14. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint." 14. Therefore, it is only such facts which would give rise to a legitimate claim or relief in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants which would give it a right to file and maintain a suit against such a party. From the plaint and documents filed, the plaintiff has to show that he has an actionable remedy in law on the facts stated in the plaint read in conjunction with the documents. 15. Perusal of the plaint as noticed hereinabove shows that the plaintiff has based her suit on an alleged apprehension which arises from the legal notice dated 1st June, 2007. The suit has been filed on 13th June, 2007 and there is not a single instance which could make out the apprehension of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 2 shall take forcible possession of the property. Certainly a legal notice to hand over possession failing which, the defendant had stated, that he would initiate legal action, cannot be termed as such illegal threat as would raise to a cause of action to maintain a suit for injunction. For this reason, there is certainly nothing in the plaint as has been laid before this Court to show any basis for the alleged apprehension premised on the legal notice. 16. The plaintiff does not aver that she has even sent a reply to the legal notice. 17. So far as the defendant No.3 is concerned, there is not even a whisper of an allegation against the defendant No.3. Merely because he is another son of the defendant No.2 and a brother of the plaintiffs husband, does not give rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to implead defendant No.3 as a party/defendant in such a suit. 18. So far as the defendant No.1 is concerned, the allegations which are noticed hereinabove are bald allegations which are not supported by any particulars or details. It is not the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendant No.1 is taking action by himself. The allegation is that he is utilising the shield of his father giving rise to the apprehensions of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendant No.1 is taking action by himself. The allegation is that he is utilising the shield of his father giving rise to the apprehensions of the plaintiff. From a perusal of the legal notice, it is evident that the defendant No.2 has taken the initiative of revoking and cancelling the gift deed dated 10th June, 1997 in favour of the plaintiff and has stated that legal action would be taken. 19. Mr. Prag Chawla, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has also stated that the apprehensions of the forcible dispossession from the suit premises are also based on the action of the defendant No.1 in raising construction on the first floor which he has amalgamated with the ground floor premises. It is not the plaintiffs case that she is not located within the same station or that she does not visit the suit premises. Not a single date with regard to when the construction commenced or when it was completed has been mentioned. It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that she has raised no objection whatsoever to the construction and has not made any prayer with regard to such a construction at any time hitherto or in the present plaint. Certainly, it cannot be stated that the apprehensions of the plaintiff that she would be dispossessed by such action of the defendants are made out from the plaint. 20. The plaint is thus premised on totally vague and specific pleas which are not supported by any material on record. In the light of the aforenoticed position in law, it has to be held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and consequently deserves to be rejected. The litigation which has been initiated by the plaintiff is totally baseless and frivolous inasmuch as on the showing of the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 has himself stated that recourse to a legal remedy would be resorted to in case the notice demand was not complied with. 21. It would be useful to consider the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 1987 Supp. SCC 563, Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath, the Court held that: "132. It is trite that a party should not be unnecessarily harassed in a suit. 21. It would be useful to consider the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 1987 Supp. SCC 563, Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath, the Court held that: "132. It is trite that a party should not be unnecessarily harassed in a suit. An order refusing the reject a plaint will finally determine his right in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 133. The idea underlying Order 7 Rule 11 (a) is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the Courts will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of a suit. Having regard to the changes in the legislative policy as adumbrated by the amendments carried out in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court would interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the Courts resources being used up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. A litigatior. which is in the opinion of the Court is doomed to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass a litigant [see Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp. SCC 315 at pp. 324-325]. 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. 140. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. For the aforementioned purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleading reliefs on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence." 22. The plaintiff can claim trial and lead evidence only on her pleadings. Certainly the bundle of facts set out in the plaint do not make out a cause of action in her favour. The plaintiff can claim trial and lead evidence only on her pleadings. Certainly the bundle of facts set out in the plaint do not make out a cause of action in her favour. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against of defendants and the present case is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, I hereby direct that the plaint be rejected. 23. Inasmuch as the litigation which has been initiated is totally frivolous and baseless, I deem it expedient and in the interest of justice to burden the plaintiff with heavy costs for. filing the present suit. Accordingly, the defendant No. 2 shall be entitled to costs from the plaintiff which are quantified at Rs. 50,000 /-. IA No. 7070/2007 I have today held that the plaint is filed without any cause of action and rejected the plaint. In view of the orders passed in the suit, this application is consequently dismissed. Application dismissed.