JUDGMENT On due consideration, Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 3011 of 2009) is allowed and the delay in filing the Counter Affidavit is hereby condoned. 2. In this Civil Revision Petition filed u/S 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital is under challenge-Vide the said impugned order, the learned Court below partly allowed and partly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in which the petitioner had prayed for the rejection of the plaint. The learned Court below while partly allowing the aforesaid application, held that the suit qua defendant no. 2 – Custodian of Enemy Property, was not maintainable in view of the bar created U/s 19 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. Also, in view of the fact that defendant no. 2 being a Governmental functionary and notice U/s 80 C.P.C. not having been served upon this defendant prior to the institution of the suit, the suit qua defendant no. 2 was held not maintainable on this ground also. 3. In so far as the issue relating to the maintainability of the suit qua defendant no. 1 is concerned, the learned Court below rejected Order 7 Rule 11 Application on the ground that the plaint did disclose cause of action and that the suit was not barred under any law for the time being in force. 4. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, stated at the Bar that the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. prayed for the rejection of the plaint only on the grounds contained in Clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11. Extract of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in so far as Clauses (a) and (d) are concerned is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus :- “11. Rejection of plaint – The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : (a) where it does not disclosed a cause of action; .................................... (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.” 5. Rejection of plaint – The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : (a) where it does not disclosed a cause of action; .................................... (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.” 5. On two grounds the rejection of the plaint was thus sought; firstly that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and secondly, appearing from the statement contained in the plaint, the Suit was barred by some law for the time being in force. In so far as the first ground is concerned, I have very carefully and minutely gone through the plaint and find that the plaint is replete with statement after statement made by the plaintiff about the plaintiff being in possession of the property in question at some point of time claiming to be its tenant and the fact that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property on 29th December, 2005. The suit undisputedly has been filed U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The statements and averments contained in the plaint clearly refer to orders passed by the Supreme Court and the averments in the plaint also clearly show and demonstrate that the plaintiff actually was dispossessed from the suit property on 29th December, 2005 purportedly and presumably under the orders of the Supreme Court by the District Administration implementing and enforcing the said orders. Having thus clearly disclosed the cause of action, which allegedly accrued to the plaintiff about his being dispossessed on 29th December, 2005, in the prayer part of the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore back the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. 6. It is the undisputed case of the parties that presently the suit property is in possession of the petitioner-defendant no. 1. In the prayer part of the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed re-possession from the defendants and even if defendant no. 2 is not now a party defendant in the suit, the suit against defendant no. 1 is effectively maintainable, because if the plaintiff is ever held entitled to the restoration of the possession of suit property, the possession has to be restored to it from defendant no. 1. 7. Mr. Gupta then took me through Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which reads thus : “6. 1 is effectively maintainable, because if the plaintiff is ever held entitled to the restoration of the possession of suit property, the possession has to be restored to it from defendant no. 1. 7. Mr. Gupta then took me through Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which reads thus : “6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.- (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him any, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought- (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.” 8. His argument is that the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property “in due course of law”, an expression used in sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed in “due course of law” or otherwise, is a matter to be adjudicated upon and decided in the suit. Undisputedly, the averments in the plaint clearly demonstrate (on the own showing of the plaintiff) that the plaintiff was dispossessed purportedly and presumably in compliance and implementation of the Supreme Court orders. That fact, however, does not prevent the plaintiff from claiming re-possession U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act because in any event, the onus would always lie upon the plaintiff to prove and establish that he was dispossessed except in due course of law. Whether it (the plaintiff) ultimately succeeds or fails in discharging this onus would depend upon a host of factors, but that does not render the suit non-maintainable because Section 6, which alone was referred to by Mr. Gupta in the course of his argument, does not create any bar by itself in the maintainability of the suit. 9. Whether it (the plaintiff) ultimately succeeds or fails in discharging this onus would depend upon a host of factors, but that does not render the suit non-maintainable because Section 6, which alone was referred to by Mr. Gupta in the course of his argument, does not create any bar by itself in the maintainability of the suit. 9. Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is a very harsh and strict provision of law because in the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court seized of a suit, while deciding an application filed under this provision of law, the Court can non suit a plaintiff at the very threshold of the proceedings in the suit, in effect and substance thus, preventing the plaintiff, the common law right of a fullfledged trial in the suit. Applications under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, cannot be dealt with lightly. The same goes about the filing of such applications because defendant in the suit always has an effective and absolute right of defending a suit on its merits. The defendant in the suit, therefore, should not in a casual manner rush for filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on any available pretext or the other. 10. In the present case, what has been noticed earlier, the suit did throw-up triable issues, entitling the parties to a proper trial. Even though at the centre of controversy is the fact about the plaintiff’s dispossession from the suit property in compliance with and implementation of the Supreme Court orders, this by itself did not prevent the plaintiff from filing the suit U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act claiming re-possession of the suit property. When I say that this did not prevent the plaintiff from filing the suit U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, I mean to hold by observing that neither Section 6 itself, nor any other provision of law barred or prevented the plaintiff from filing such a suit even in the face of the peculiar fact of the plaintiff having been dispossessed in compliance with Supreme Court order. What would be the fate of the suit ultimately is an altogether different matter. Whether the suit would succeed on its merits or not is also altogether a different matter. What would be the fate of the suit ultimately is an altogether different matter. Whether the suit would succeed on its merits or not is also altogether a different matter. We are concerned at this stage only with the maintainability of the suit under Clause (d) of Rule 11 on the ground of it being barred by any law for the time being in force. I have no hesitation in holding in clear terms that the suit was not barred by any law for the time being in force. The application filed by the petitioner, therefore, was wholly misconceived. The plaintiff has unnecessarily driven the respondent to this Court by filing this revision petition. 11. While summing up, without any hesitation, I hold that suit of the plaintiff, both under clause (a) as well as clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot be held to be non-maintainable even though what would be the ultimate fate of the suit has to be decided upon a host of factors at the stage of the conclusion of the trial. Linked with clause (a), I have no hesitation in holding that the plaint, based on the averments contained therein did disclose clearly and unambiguously, the accrual of cause of action to the plaintiff and, linked with clause (d) I also have no hesitation in holding that the suit was not barred based upon the statement contained in the Plaint under any law for the time being in force. 12. The revision petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.