JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The aforesaid petition, is directed, against the disaffirmative orders pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, an application cast before it, by the defendants, under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, wherethrough, the, defendants espoused for rejection, of the plaint, (a) on the ground qua the plaintiff failing to embody in the suit for partition, certain properties, as, disclosed, in the apt application. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition, of, the joint properties, and, had impleaded all apt co-owners thereof, as, defendants. A perusal of the plaint, does, bear out the factum, of the plaintiff''s suit, for partition of the undivided properties, jointly held by her, with, the defendants, not, obviously including, the, properties reflected by the defendants, in their application, as, subsequently cast before the learned trial Court, under, the provisions, of, Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. 2. Before proceeding to determine, the predominant fact, whether, any suit for partial partition, of, property(ies) held joinlty amongst the plaintiff, and, the defendants, is maintainable, it, is deemed imperative, to allude, to the provisions borne in Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- 11. Rejection of plaint-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:: [(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;] [(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;]" (a) significantly when only upon satiation qua the mandate thereof, the apt mandate thereof, rather would beget, attraction, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff''s suit. However, prior thereto, it is also imperative to determine, the, tenacity of the reasons assigned, by the learned trial Court. However, prior thereto, it is also imperative to determine, the, tenacity of the reasons assigned, by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, without, meteing any interpretation, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid factum, has rather hence declined, the, espoused relief to the defendants, merely, on the ground, of, the documents hence appended with the apt application, being photo copies, of, the apt revenue record, whereto presumption of truth, is not attachable rather, presumption of truth, being attachable, vis-a-vis, the original(s) thereof. However, the aforesaid reason(s) assigned by the learned trial Court, are, per se, flimsy, as the mere appending, of, the photo copies, of, the relevant revenue records, with the apt application, per se, not, eroding the probative vigour thereof, (i) unless, the plaintiff while meteing reply, to, the aforesaid apt application, had contested the authenticity, of, the photo copies of the apt revenue record. However, when a perusal of the reply filed by the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, the apt application, fails to unfold, qua the plaintiff/non-applicant, hence, contesting the authenticity, of, the photo copies, of, the apt revenue record, appended with the apposite application, (ii) thereupon, it was insagacious, for, the learned trial Court, on the aforesaid anvil, hence decline relief, vis-a-vis, the defendants, upon their apposite application. 3. Be that as it may, it is also enjoined to be determined, whether the plaintiff, was, enjoined to cast, a suit for partition, only with respect, to, some of the properties jointly held by her, with, the defendants or whether the suit for partial partition, of, all the joint suit properties, was or was not hence maintainable. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, has, contended with vigour, that, it being insagacious, to make any insistence, upon, the plaintiff/respondent herein, to cast a suit, for, partition qua all undivided suit properties, jointly held by her hence with the defendants. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, has, contended with vigour, that, it being insagacious, to make any insistence, upon, the plaintiff/respondent herein, to cast a suit, for, partition qua all undivided suit properties, jointly held by her hence with the defendants. He contends that merely, the, apt pleadings as cast by the respective litigants in their respective plaint, and, their respective written statements, alone comprising, the relevant material, for, hence attracting the mandate of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, and, when the suit for partial partition, does discloses espousable causes of action, and, when the suit for partition, is, properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction, and, when advolerm court fees stand affixed upon the plaint, especially vis-a-vis the apt shares, of the plaintiff/non-applicant, in, the undivided suit property, thereupon, the plaint not warranting rejection. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, is in part conflict, with, the pronouncement, made by the Hon''ble Madras High Court in a case titled as R.Sudha vs. Shanmugam , (2017) 3 MLJ 208 , the relevant paragraph No.9 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "9. The next argument put forth by the plaintiff''s counsel is that the courts below have erred in holding that the suit is bad for partial partition. However, as seen from the judgment and decree of the courts below, they have rightly found that the plaintiff has deliberately omitted to include the lands belonging to the Joint Hindu Family Properties, particularly, obtained by the first defendant by way of oral partition and the document viz. Ex. B3. It is also found by the courts below that it is only the first defendant, who is maintaining the joint family and also put up house construction in respect of the properties and also not acted against the interest of his children. Therefore, the courts below have also disbelieved the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and found that the Joint Hindu family had owned 3.66 acres lands and on the other hand, the plaintiff has deliberately excluded certain items and only had laid the suit in respect of the suit properties covered under Exs. B1 & 2. Therefore, as rightly contended by the contesting defendants, the suit laid by the plaintiff for partition is bad for partial partition. B1 & 2. Therefore, as rightly contended by the contesting defendants, the suit laid by the plaintiff for partition is bad for partial partition. The findings of the courts below, as regards the above issue is found to be based on the correct appreciation of the evidence on record, and, also upon acceptable findings and conclusions. No infirmity is found with reference to the above findings of the courts below." and also, partially conflicts with the verdict, of, the Hon''ble Delhi High Court, rendered in a case titled as Saichanakya versus Priti Tandon & Anr. , (2014) 19 RCR(Civ) 630 (Delhi), relevant paragraph No.15 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "15. Pertaining to the first contention advanced, it may not doubt be true that a suit for partial partition of joint property is not maintainable. But this would be when either joint title to the property has not to be established by any litigating party and flows from the document of title, or where the plea is that the family constituted a joint family with further claim that the properties in the names of individual members were purchased from out of the joint funds. In a case of the instant kind, where there are no allegations by either side that a particular property is a joint property, the claim being that a particular property is held benami, would not attract the principle of law that a suit for partial partition would not lie. The reason being that the suit filed would not be one seeking partial partition. Th defence that some other property is also liable to be partitioned because the registered owner thereof is a benamidar would require first a title to be proved and thereafter the if the title is proved a partition to be effected." wherein, rather concurrent view(s) stand recorded qua a suit for partial partition, of, the joint properties, rather being not maintainable. However, accepting to the fullest, the aforesaid trite expostulation of law, would beget immense hardship, and, would disempower the plaintiff, to seek partition, of the suit properties, and, of all undivided suit properties, held jointly by her with the defendants, though, not included in the plaint, (a) emphatically when, in, contradiction therewith, rather hereat the suit has not progressed, upto the stage, of, issues being framed nor evidence upon the apt framed issues, stands adduced, rather when the suit, is, at a nascent stage, (ii) thereupon the inclusion therein, of, only some of the joint properties, and, its excluding the apt joint properties, as, mentioned in the application, rather cannot coax any conclusion qua the plaint not disclosing any enforceable causes of action, vis- a-vis, the plaintiff, contrarily, with, it , for reasons aforestated, standing also properly valued for the purpose of court fee, and, jurisdiction, and, besides when hence, infirmity, if any, in the plaint, is yet curable by the plaintiff/non-applicant/respondent herein, comprised in the latter, in consonance, with the joint properties, disclosed in the apt application, recoursing the provisions, borne in Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, (I) thereupon, in the larger interest, of, justice, and, for not precluding the rights of the plaintiff/non-applicant, and, of the defendants, to, rear a claim for dismemberment, of all, undivided suit properties, jointly held by her, with, the defendants, (ii) besides, especially when hence the bar of Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, would also stand attracted against the plaintiff, and, against the defendants, (iii) thereupon, alone this Court deems it fit, to uphold, the impugned order, with, a condition that the plaintiff, shall, by motioning the trial Court, by casting an application, borne under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, seeks its leave to incorporate in the plaint, all suit properties jointly held by her with the defendants, and, as disclosed in the apt application. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 29th August, 2018. Records be sent back forthwith.