JUDGMENT : M.R SHAH, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order/judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned 11thAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) below Exhs.22 and 26 in Special Civil Suit No. 139/2015, by which the learned trial Court has allowed the said application Exhs.22 and 26 preferred by the defendants and has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), the original plaintiff has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. That the original plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No. 139/2015 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat against the respondents herein - original defendants for a declaration to declare that pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2005 bearing registration No. 2759 with respect to the suit land, he become the actual owner and in occupation and possession of the same and to declare that except the plaintiff no other persons - defendants have any right, title or interest and to do anything with respect to the suit land and to declare that any act and/or transaction by any of the defendants in respect of the suit land be declared null and void. 3. The original plaintiff also prayed that Satakhat dated 02.07.2013 which was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Surat on 04.07.2013 bearing registration No. 715 executed by the original defendant Nos. 1 and 12 in favour of the defendant Nos. 13 and 14 be also declared as null and void and illegal and to declare that the original defendant Nos. 13 and 14 have not got any right, title or interest in the suit land pursuant to the said Satakhat. The original plaintiff also prayed to quash and set aside the registered sale deed dated 30.12.2014 bearing registration No. 1243/2014 registered with Sub-Registrar, Suart executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 12 in favour of defendant No. 15. The original plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from transferring, alienating the suit land in any manner whatsoever and also further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. That the said suit was filed on 04.03.2005 4. Having been served with the notice/summons of the suit, the original defendant Nos. That the said suit was filed on 04.03.2005 4. Having been served with the notice/summons of the suit, the original defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 12 submitted the application Exh.22 requesting to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC submitting that before filing the suit the plaintiff has sold the suit land by plotting the same in small plots by different 8 documents/sale deeds between 2006 to 2014 which are produced along with the list at mark 8 to 15. It was submitted that aforesaid facts have not been disclosed by the plaintiff in the suit and there was suppression of material fact. It was submitted that therefore, when the plaintiff instituted the suit, he ceases to be the owner and/or in occupation and possession of the suit land pursuant to the so-called document of 2005. It was submitted that therefore at the time of institution of the suit the plaintiff had no cause of action and therefore, the plaint is required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The original defendant No. 5 also filed similar application at Exh.26 and requested to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the cpc. 5. That by impugned order the learned trial Court has allowed the applications Exh.22 and 26 and has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC by observing that prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff had already sold the suit land after getting it plotted by registered sale deeds and therefore, at the time of filing of the suit, he was not the owner and/or he had no ownership right in the suit property and that he has suppressed the fact in the plaint and had not disclosed that he had already sold the suit land. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, the original plaintiff has preferred the present First Appeal. 7. Shri Amit Thakkar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff and Shri R.S Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Manan Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein-original defendant Nos. 7. Shri Amit Thakkar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff and Shri R.S Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Manan Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein-original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 and Shri Asim Pandya, learned advocate has appeared with Shri P.V Patadiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 15 herein - original defendant No. 15. 8. Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It is further submitted by Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff that the learned trial Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that at the time of/for the purpose of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC only, averments in the plaint are required to be considered and not in defence of the defendants. It is submitted that in the present case there are specific averments in the plaint disclosing the cause of action to institute the suit. It is submitted that therefore, the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 9. It is further submitted by Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff that the learned trial Court has materially erred in observing that there was suppression of material fact by not disclosing in the plaint/suit that the plaintiff had already sold the suit property by different dated registered sale deeds between 2006 to 2014. It is submitted that as such there was no suppression of material fact at all as alleged by the defendants and held by the learned trial Court. 10. It is submitted that even otherwise the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the aforesaid ground i.e on the ground of suppression. It is submitted that as such on the aforesaid ground the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. 10. It is submitted that even otherwise the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the aforesaid ground i.e on the ground of suppression. It is submitted that as such on the aforesaid ground the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. It is submitted that whether there is any suppression of a fact and/or suppression of a material fact which disentitles the plaintiff any relief, all such questions are required to be considered at the time of trial. It is submitted that therefore on the aforesaid ground the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 11. Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mayar (H.K) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V Fortune Express reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100 : AIR 2006 SC 1828 (Paras 10, 11 and 18) while submitting that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint. It is submitted that it is further held that the Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole or find out if it discloses any cause of action then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Relying upon para 18 of the said decision it is submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the aspect of suppression of material fact, it must be considered that the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had a effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for consideration of the Court, whatever view the Court may have taken. 12. It must be a matter which was material for consideration of the Court, whatever view the Court may have taken. 12. Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff has further submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had sold the suit land by 8 different registered sale deeds between 2006 and 2014, after plotting the suit land and therefore, at the time of filing of the suit, he had no ownership right in the suit land and therefore, he had no cause of action to file the suit on the basis of the registered sale deed of 2005. It is submitted that firstly out of the total land admeasuring 8650 sq. meter of land bearing survey No. 787/2, only 7066.86 sq. meter was sold and the remaining 1762 sq. meter of land bearing survey No. 787/2 is still with the plaintiff. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect has not at all considered and/or dealt with by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that even otherwise on the aforesaid ground the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC and it cannot be said that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. It is submitted that in order to make the title of the subsequent purchaser clear and marketable, the original owner though might have sold the property in favour of the subsequent purchaser, still they file the suit and get title clear and marketable so that the subsequent purchasers may also get the title clear and marketable. It is submitted that therefore merely because the plaintiff might have sold the property, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, as the plaintiff still has a right to get his title clear and marketable which is conveyed to the subsequent purchaser. 13. In support of his above submissions, Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharadamma v. Mohammed Pyrejan (Dead) through Legal Representatives reported in (2016) 1 SCC 730 (Para 5). 13. In support of his above submissions, Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharadamma v. Mohammed Pyrejan (Dead) through Legal Representatives reported in (2016) 1 SCC 730 (Para 5). He has also relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hukum Singh Nadir Singh v. Hakumat Rai Nihal Chand reported in AIR 1968 P&H 110 as well as the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Gouri Shankar Prasad v. Ram Kishun Dass reported in AIR 1974 Patna 319. 14. It is further submitted Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff that even otherwise considering the other reliefs which are sought such as to declare the plaintiff as owner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2005 in his favour; the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating the suit property and restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff would not have been rejected by the learned trial Court in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. 15. It is submitted that infact after the registered sale deed in his favour in the year 2005, the plaintiff got the land converted into non-agricultural use and even paid the premium of a huge amount. It is submitted that therefore also the learned trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 16. Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V Guru Raj Reddy Represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy reported in (2015) 8 SCC 331 (Paras 5 and 6) in support of his above submission that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the power conferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in respect of rejection of the plaint is of drastic nature and conditions precedent to exercise the said powers are stringent. It is submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision while exercising of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments in the plaint have to be read as a whole and stand of the defendant in written statement or in application for rejection of plaint is wholly immaterial at that stage. 17. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct to restore the main suit on the file of the learned trial Court and to direct the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of the evidence to be led. 18. Present First Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri R.S Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 and Shri Asim Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant No. 15. 19. At this stage it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that as such defendant Nos. 1 to 12 have sold the suit land in favour of original defendant No. 15. 20. Shri Sanjanwala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and by giving cogent reasons the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 that as such the plaintiff did not come with the clean hands and suppressed the material fact in the suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff did not disclose in the plaint/suit that they had already sold the suit land by a separate different 8 registered sale deeds after plotting the suit land and therefore, it disentitles the plaintiff from any relief in the suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff did not disclose in the plaint/suit that they had already sold the suit land by a separate different 8 registered sale deeds after plotting the suit land and therefore, it disentitles the plaintiff from any relief in the suit. It is submitted that apart from the above, in view of the fact that original plaintiff had already sold the suit land by 8 different registered sale deeds after getting the land plotted in different plots and thereby at the time of filing of the suit he had no ownership right in the suit land and therefore, he ceases to have any ownership right on the basis of the registered sale deed of 2005 on the basis of which he has claimed the right and thereby he had no cause of action to file the suit and ask for the reliefs which are prayed in the plaint. It is submitted that therefore when the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit, the same was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. 21. Shri Sanjanwala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.R.s v. Jagannath (Dead) by L.R.s reported in 1994 (1) GLH 81 (Paras 5 and 6) and has submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a person, whose case is based on falsehood, had no right to approach the Court and it can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. 22. It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 that once the original plaintiff is divested of the title, thereafter he has no further cause of action more particularly on the basis of the events subsequent to the execution of the sale deed. 23. 22. It is further submitted by Shri Sanjanwala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 that once the original plaintiff is divested of the title, thereafter he has no further cause of action more particularly on the basis of the events subsequent to the execution of the sale deed. 23. Shri Asim Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 15 has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 : AIR 2004 SC 1801 (Para 20) and has submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision there is distinction between the “material facts” and “particulars”. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the words “material facts” show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated and omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or the plaint becomes bad. 24. Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant No. 15 relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union reported in (2001) 3 SCC 101 : AIR 2001 SC 1165 has submitted that even if the case may not fall within Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, still the plaint can be rejected in exercise of powers under Section 151 of the CPC. 25. Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant No. 15 relying upon the Order VII Rule 13 of the CPC has submitted that even otherwise the plaintiff can still by stating correct facts and therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to him. It is submitted that therefore when it is found that the plaintiff has suppressed the material fact by not disclosing that prior to filing of the suit, he had already sold the suit land and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. 26. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 and 15 have requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 27. 26. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 12 and 15 have requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 27. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by impugned order passed below Exhs. 22 and 26 preferred by the original defendant nos. 1 to 7 and 12, the learned trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure mainly and solely on the ground and by observing that prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff has already sold the suit land by different registered sale deed and therefore, at the time of filing of the suit, he has no ownership right in the suit and therefore, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. 28. While considering the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the cause of action pleaded in the plaint and the reliefs which are sought in the suit/plaint, are required to be referred to and consider/reads as under: Cause of the Suit:- When I, the plaintiff, came to know from outside about wrong acts and procedures having been committed by defendant no. 1 to 12 in respect of aforesaid suit land recently, and when the plaintiff obtained copy of village form no. 7/12, pani patrak on 23/01/2015 from aforesaid land revenue record, I came to know that names of defendant no. 1 to 12 have been entered in the copy of village form no. 7/12 pani patrak in the aforesaid land revenue record. As I came to know that temporary mutation entry has been made vide entry no. 7708 in the aforesaid copy, I made an application to E Dhara City Mamlatdar to obtain true copy of temporary mutation entry no. 7708 to inquire as to on which basis the said mutation entry has been made. For the first time, the plaintiff came to know that defendant no. 1 to 12 sold aforesaid suit land for Rs. 2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakh) vide registered sale deed no. 1243/2014 to defendant no. 7708 to inquire as to on which basis the said mutation entry has been made. For the first time, the plaintiff came to know that defendant no. 1 to 12 sold aforesaid suit land for Rs. 2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakh) vide registered sale deed no. 1243/2014 to defendant no. 15 Azad Chaturbhai Ramoliya on 30/12/2014 after getting their names entered as heirs of deceased Gamanlal Nanubhai Modi. On the basis of the said sale deed, I came to know that defendant no. 15 got their names entered in the revenue record in collusion with defendant no. 1 to 12. The mutation entry no. 7708 has been made in revenue record on 30/12/2014 on the basis of the said sale deed. When the plaintiff needed to give objection application to Mamlatdar, Majura Taluka, on 27/01/2015 against temporary mutation entry no. 7708 being certified and as I made inquiry in the office of Sub Registrar in respect of sale deed executed in favour of defendant no. 15 by defendant no. 1 to 12, I obtained certified copy of sale deed executed in favour of defendant no. 15 by defendant no. 1 to 12 in respect of the aforesaid suit land. Further, sale deed of aforesaid suit land has been executed in favour of defendant no. 15. Apart from this, I came to know that defendant no. 1 to 12 executed exchange deed in respect of sale of aforesaid suit land in favour of defendant no. 13 and 14 accepting Rs. 9,28,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Only) towards earnest money after deciding to sell aforesaid suit land to defendant no. 13 and 14 for Rs. 22500000/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Five Lakh Only) on 02/07/2013. The said exchange deed has also been registered vide sr. no. 715 at Sub Registrar Office in Surat on 04/07/2013. As I got information recently that defendant no. 1 to 12 executed registered exchange deed in respect of aforesaid sale deed to defendant no. 13 and 14 in 2013, I, the plaintiff, obtained certified copy of aforesaid registered exchange deed from the Sub Registrar Office, Surat. Thereafter, when I came to know that defendants of this case have been committing wrong acts and procedures in respect of aforesaid suit land in collusion with one another, the cause of this suit has arisen. 13 and 14 in 2013, I, the plaintiff, obtained certified copy of aforesaid registered exchange deed from the Sub Registrar Office, Surat. Thereafter, when I came to know that defendants of this case have been committing wrong acts and procedures in respect of aforesaid suit land in collusion with one another, the cause of this suit has arisen. Reliefs: (1) Declare that on the basis of the sale deed registered vide serial no. 2759 on 28/02/2005 in our favour for the properly described in para-1 of this plaint, we, the plaintiffs have become independent owners and direct occupants of the said suit land and declare that except we, the plaintiffs, all the defendants of this case have no right or authority to commit any act or undertake any proceedings with respect to the said suit land and declare that whatever act or proceedings conducted by the defendants of this case with respect to the suit land are frivolous and null and void as all such acts and proceedings are illegal and against the principles of law. (2) Defendant no. 1 to 10 of this case have executed Exchange Deed regarding suit land in favour of defendants no. 13 and 14 on 02/07/2013. This Exchange Deed has been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Surat vide serial no. 715 on 04/07/2013. Declare that this Exchange Deed is false, bogus, fabricated, illegal, without any consideration, inoperative and null and void and declare that the defendants no. 13 and 14 do not get any right or authority in the suit land on the basis of this Exchange Deed. (3) Defendant no. 1 to 10 of this case have executed Sale Deed regarding suit land in favour of defendants no. 15. This Sale Deed has been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Surat vide serial no. 1243/2014 on 30/12/2014. Declare that this Sale Deed is null and void by holding the same to be false, fabricated, illegal, against the law, ex-parte, without any consideration, inoperative and bogus and declare that this sale deed is not biding to the plaintiffs and declare that the defendant no. 15 does not get any right, share, authority, interest, occupancy or ownership in the suit land on the basis of this Sale Deed. 15 does not get any right, share, authority, interest, occupancy or ownership in the suit land on the basis of this Sale Deed. (4) Pass permanent injunction order against all the defendants of this case restraining them from selling, transferring, mortgaging, gifting, renting or transferring in anyway the suit land described in para-1 of this plaint and that they shall not cause any hindrance or obstacle in our occupancy rights or they shall not cause any criminal trespass in our direct possession and occupancy on the said suit land or they shall not cause any alteration, excavation, construction or commit any such act which can alter the present identity of the land or they shall not commit any act or undertake any proceedings which can cause any hindrance, obstacle or nullity in our valuable rights over the said suit land. 29. Thus, from the reliefs sought in the plaint which are reproduced herein above, it app ears that original plaintiff claimed the ownership and the right, title and interest in the suit property on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2005, which was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Surat office for the registration no. 2759 dated 28.02.2005 It appears that despite the above, defendant nos. 1 to 12 executed the Satakhat in favour of defendant nos. 13 and 14 on 2.07.2013 and even sold the suit land in favour of the defendant no. 15 by the original defendant nos. 1 to 12 by executing the sale deed on 30.12.2014 Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration to declare that pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2005, he has become the absolute owner and in occupation and possession of the suit land and for declaration that except he, no defendants have any right, title or interest or that any act of the original defendants with respect to the suit land be declared as null and void. There are necessary averments with respect to the cause of action pleaded in para 6 of the suit/plaint which are reproduced herein above. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that when the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and/or there are no averments disclosing cause of action in the plaint. There are necessary averments with respect to the cause of action pleaded in para 6 of the suit/plaint which are reproduced herein above. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that when the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and/or there are no averments disclosing cause of action in the plaint. As per the settled proposition of law while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the averments in the plaint have to be read as a whole and the stand of the defendants in the written statement and in application for rejection of the plaint, is wholly immaterial at this stage. In the case of P.V Guru Raj Reddy Represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy (supra) while considering the Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in para 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: “5. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order VII, Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order VII, Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial.” 30. In the case of Kamala (supra) while considering the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that for the purpose of invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no amount of evidence can be looked into. In the case of Kamala (supra) while considering the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that for the purpose of invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within realm of the Court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject matter of an order under the said provision. At this stage, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool & London S.P & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.v Sea Success, I reported in (2004) 9 SCC 512 (para 139), in the case of C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai reported in (2007) 14 SCC 183 (para 8) and another decision in the case of Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. reported in reported in (2005) 7 SCC 510 are required to be referred to. In para 139 in the case of Liverpool & London S.P & I Assn. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: “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.” 31. In the present case, the learned trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure considering the case on behalf of the defendants that subsequently when prior to filing of the suit the plaintiff has sold the suit land by getting land plotted by different registered sale deeds, plaintiff had no ownership over the suit land at the time of filing of the suit and therefore, the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. 32. 32. However, the considering the relief sought in the plaint and cause of action pleaded in the plaint, we are prima facie of the opinion that on the aforesaid ground, the plaint ought not to have rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are number of legal issues which are required to be considered at the time of trail. In a given case, it may happen that though the original owner might have sold the property to some other persons, however to make his title clear and marketable and to avoid any further litigation between the master of the suit and the subsequent purchasers, he may file the suit to get his title clear and marketable, which he had conveyed to some other persons. 33. It is the case on behalf of the plaintiff that out of the total land admeasuring 8650 sq. meter of land bearing survey No. 787/2, only 7066.86 sq. meter was sold and the remaining 1762 sq. meter of land bearing survey No. 787/2 is still with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sought permanent injunction against the defendants. It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that even the plaintiff got the suit land converted into NA and paid the huge amount towards premium for getting the land converted into NA. He claims to be owner pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2005 on payment of huge sale consideration. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and cause of action pleaded in the plaint and the relief sought in the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had no cause of action at all and/or the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, for which, the plaint is required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V Guru Raj Reddy Represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy (supra) power conferred under Order VII Rule 11 are of drastic nature and the plaintiff shall be non suited at the threshold. Therefore, great care and caution is required to be taken while exercise the powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, great care and caution is required to be taken while exercise the powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure mainly and solely on the ground that before filing of the suit, the plaintiff had sold the suit land and therefore, at the time of filing of the suit he has not having any ownership right in the suit land in question. While rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated and considered the cause of action pleaded in the plaint as well as relief sought in the plaint. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated herein above, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court is not justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 34. From the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, it appears that the learned trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaintiff had not disclosed in the plaint that he had already sold the suit land prior to filing of the suit. However, looking to the relief sought i.e. for declaration claiming ownership on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2005 and other reliefs sought, it is required to be considered whether non disclosure of the aforesaid would entail the consequence of rejecting the plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the aforesaid non disclosure can be termed as material suppression and/or only suppression of facts are required to be considered at the time of trial and also it can be considered while considering discretionary relief. On the aforesaid, the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and that too on the basis of the defence of the defendants. On the aforesaid, the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and that too on the basis of the defence of the defendants. Under the circumstances also, the learned trial Court has material erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the aforesaid ground. 35. Now, so far as submission made by Shri Pandya, learned advocate for the defendant no. 15 that considering the provision of Order VII Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff can still file the fresh suit disclosing the correct facts and there shall not be any prejudice cause to the plaintiff if the impugned order of rejection of plaint on the aforesaid ground is sustained is concerned, if the submission of Shri Pandya, learned advocate for the original defendant no. 15 is accepted, in that case, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. If the plaintiff can still file fresh suit disclosing the facts, which according to the plaintiff are suppressed in that case, the plaintiff still can amend the plaint, which avoid the further multiplicity of proceedings. 36. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and more particularly, considering the cause of action pleaded in the plaint and the relief sought, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 37. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned order/judgment dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exhs.22 and 26 in Special Civil Suit No. 139/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside the Special Civil Suit No. 139/2015 is hereby ordered to be restored to file of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of evidence that may be led. The learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of evidence that may be led. It is observed and clarified that any observation made in the present order shall be confined to application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and at the stage of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure only and the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of the evidence to be led. Present appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.