JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30/8/2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court) in Civil Suit No. 131 of 2007, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants except the defendant No. 3 under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, and dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. 2. The appellant/plaintiff Abdul Wasi happens to be the son of the respondent No. 3-Dr. Abdul Sami, and the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 happen to be the brothers of the respondent No. 3. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents/defendants, seeking partition of the suit property situated at C-107, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, and seeking permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of the said property. As per the case of the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property belonged to the grand-father of the plaintiff, and father of the respondents, late Shri Abdul Samad. According to the appellant, the said property as shown in the map annexed to the plaint was orally gifted by late Shri Abdul Samad to the mother of the appellant Smt. Fatima. The said oral gift-Hiba was also followed by a memorandum (the Tehrir) on 3/11/1981. It was further case of the appellant/plaintiff that by virtue of said Hibanama, he was entitled to seek partition of the disputed suit property by meets and bounds and get actual possession of his share, however, the respondent/defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were trying to sell the said property depriving the appellant and his brothers, sisters and mother of their respective shares in the suit property, and hence the suit for partition and injunction was filed. In the said suit, the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 had submitted an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC before the Trial Court, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action had arisen against them as the plaintiff had not produced the Hibanama-gift deed on the basis of which the plaintiff had claimed his right, and that the plaintiff had also not impleaded his mother Fatima as the party defendant in the suit, in whose favour the oral gift was made by the grand father of the plaintiff. 3. 3. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, allowed the said application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC filed by the concerned respondents vide the impugned order, and dismissed the suit by rejecting the plaint vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal. 4. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Mohd. Anees for the appellant that the Trial Court in utter disregard of the settled legal position had allowed the application of the respondents under Order 7, Rule 11 . According to him, the appellant/plaintiff had clearly disclosed the cause of action against all the respondents/defendants for seeking partition of the suit property. He further submitted that the Court, for finding out the cause of action, was not required to make a detailed inquiry about the right of the plaintiff and has to take into consideration the averments made in the plaint only. However, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal, for the respondents submitted that the suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff at the instance of his father the respondent No. 3, as the other respondents had already executed sale deeds in respect of their respective shares in the suit property in favour of one Neelu Dhandia, and the said Smt. Neelu Dhandia had also filed a suit against the respondent No. 3, seeking specific performance of the agreement in respect of his ⅕ share in suit property, executed by the respondent No. 3 in her favour. According to Mr. Agarwal, the suit therefore was filed at the instance of the respondent No. 3 to frustrate the suit filed by Smt. Neelu Dhandia, however, as on today, the said suit has already been decreed in favour of said Smt. Neelu Dhandia against which the respondent No. 3 has preferred the appeal before this Court. Taking the Court to the averments made in the plaint, Mr. Agarwal submitted that the appellant/plaintiff had based his claim in the suit property alleging that the grand-father of the appellant had orally gifted the suit property to his mother Fatima, however Smt. Fatima was not impleaded as the party defendant in the suit nor the so called Hibanama was produced by the appellant, though relied upon in the plaint. Agarwal submitted that the appellant/plaintiff had based his claim in the suit property alleging that the grand-father of the appellant had orally gifted the suit property to his mother Fatima, however Smt. Fatima was not impleaded as the party defendant in the suit nor the so called Hibanama was produced by the appellant, though relied upon in the plaint. He therefore submitted that the appellant/plaintiff had thus failed to disclose any cause of action in the plaint against the respondents/defendants. Mr. Agarwal has also relied upon various judgments of Supreme Court to show that clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action is not permitted in law, and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. 5. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that though the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is dated 30/8/2008, the appellant or his counsel had not bothered to proceed with the appeal seriously, till this date, inasmuch as no substantive progress has been made in the appeal after its institution till this date. It is also required to be noted that the appeal has already stood abated qua the respondent No. 1 as per the order dated 16.07.2004, as the appellant had failed to bring on record the legal heirs of the respondent No. 1 within the prescribed time limit. Though the respondent No. 2-Abdul Azia has also expired long back, the appellant has not bothered to serve the notices issued by the Court to his legal representatives, and therefore the appeal qua the respondent No. 2 has also stood abated for want of prosecution. Having said that, let us examine the legal and factual aspects involved in the appeal. 6. Having said that, let us examine the legal and factual aspects involved in the appeal. 6. So far as the legal position with regard to Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC is concerned, it may be stated that the Apex Court in the latest decision in case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 has reiterated inter alia that where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, where the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the Court, where the plaint is insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the Court, where the plaint is barred by any law, where the plaintiff failed to enclose the required copies or to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the Court has no other option except to reject the plaint. 7. The Apex Court considering other earlier judgments observed in para No. 12, as under:- "12. It is also useful to refer the judgment in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal , wherein while considering the very same provision, i.e. Order 7, Rule 11 and the duty of the trial Court in considering such application, this Court has reminded the trial Judges with the following observation: (SCC p. 470, para 5) "5. ...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 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever 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 10, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Chapter XI) and must be triggered against them." It is clear that if the allegations are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right or material(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial Judge to exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 . If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action as observed by Krishna Iyer J., in the above referred decision, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties under Order 10 of the Code. 8. In the light of afore stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, it transpires from the bare reading of the plaint that the appellant plaintiff had based his claim on the oral gift, followed by Hibanama allegedly executed by his grand-father Abdul Samad in favour of his mother Fatima in respect of the suit property. However, the appellant/plaintiff had neither produced the original Hibanama or a copy thereof along-with the plaint, nor had impleaded his mother Fatima as the party defendant in the suit. It cannot be gainsaid that as per Rule 14 Order 7, where the plaintiff sues relying upon the document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he has to enter such document in the list and produce it in the Court when the plaint is presented by him. It also cannot be gainsaid that the Court while considering the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the defendants has to take into consideration the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced therewith. However, in the instant case, the appellant/plaintiff had not produced the original Hibanama nor a copy thereof along with the plaint. It appears that subsequently a copy of the said Hibanama was produced by the appellant stating that the original Hibanama was with his mother Fatima. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Agarwal for the respondents, from the copy of the said Hibanama, it transpires that the same was not registered as required under the Registration Act, and therefore could not be admitted in evidence. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Agarwal for the respondents, from the copy of the said Hibanama, it transpires that the same was not registered as required under the Registration Act, and therefore could not be admitted in evidence. According to him the said copy of Hibanama produced by the appellant was a forged document, however even if it is assumed that the said document was a genuine one, the said document having not been registered as per the Registration Act was inadmissible in evidence, and therefore no right could be said to have accrued in favour of the appellant by virtue of the said Hibanama. The Court also finds much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel Mr. Agarwal that the appellant/plaintiff had claimed partition on the basis of oral gift followed by Hibanama allegedly executed by his grand-father in favour of his mother Fatima, and said Smt. Fatima was not impleaded as the party defendant in the suit. In absence of the Hibabnama on record and in absence of Smt. Fatima as the party defendant, through whom the plaintiff has based his claim for partition, no cause of action could be said to have arisen against the appellants-defendants who are the sons of the original owner Abdul Samad. 9. At this juncture, it is also required to be mentioned that while scrutinising the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the Trial Court to ascertain the materials for cause of action, and as per settled legal position, the cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. The Apex Court in case of A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163 while explaining as to what is "cause of action" has observed as under:- "12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff." 10. In view of the above, there is no shadow of doubt that it is necessary for the plaintiff to aver all material facts giving rise to cause of action against the defendants and the plaint must include some act done by the defendants, giving the plaintiff right to sue and seek relief against them. In other words, every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it manifestly appears to be vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Trial Court must exercise its powers under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled, as the bogus litigation should be shot down at the earliest stage, as observed by the Apex Court in case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 . 11. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant/plaintiff having failed to disclose any cause of action in the plaint against the respondents/defendants in the suit, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of CPC. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. At this juncture, it may be noted that the present appeal was tagged along with the First Appeal being No. 90/2012, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 3/8/2011, passed by the concerned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 2/11 (589/2011), which was dismissed by the Court under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. In the said suit the present appellant who was the plaintiff had sought partition claiming his 3/14th share in the suit property along with the present respondents and other defendants. The said first appeal has also been dismissed today by passing separate order. 12. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******