JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is the opposite-party in J.B.C. Case No.15 of 2016, is aggrieved of order dated 18.06.2018 passed in J.B.C. Revision Case No.25 of 2016 and order dated 06.05.2016 passed in J.B.C. Case No.15 of 2016 by which her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. Plea taken by the petitioner is that J.B.C. Case No.15 of 2016 is barred by res-judicata and therefore the plaint is liable for rejection, and it so also on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. 3. Briefly stated, J.B.C. Case No.47 of 2015 was instituted by Smt. Nirmala Devi claiming herself absolute owner of the building which consists of residential house and the shops, constructed over Khata No.172, Plot No.86 at Morabadi, Ranchi. The suit was instituted on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant-Chinmoy Mukherjee. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit land, which was the self-acquired property of Ram Sevak Lal who has executed a registered WILL in favour of the plaintiff, after death of the testator on 23.07.1990 became her property by virtue of the order dated 10.12.2012 passed in Probate Case No.147 of 1990. The defendant filed an application for leave to defend in which he has asserted that the suit was instituted against a wrong person and that he is not in occupation or possession of the tenanted house [para-5]. He filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC reiterating his stand that he is neither the tenant nor in occupation of the building in question rather, his wife namely, Manisha Manjhi @ Manisha Mukherjee is the one in whose occupation is the building in question and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In paragraph no.8 of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, he has claimed that he is not a tenant under the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not the landlord. In J.B.C. Case No.47 of 2015, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint and an application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for addition of Manisha Manjhi @ Manisha Mukherjee as a party in the suit. 4. By an order dated 12.08.2015 the proceeding in J.B.C. Case No.47 of 2015 has been closed. 5. 4. By an order dated 12.08.2015 the proceeding in J.B.C. Case No.47 of 2015 has been closed. 5. Thereafter, J.B.C. Case No.15 of 2016 has been filed by Nirmala Devi for ejection of Manisha Manjhi @ Manisha Mukherjee. In paragraph no.9 of this case, the plaintiff has pleaded that she requires the suit premises for the business of her unemployed son, however, even on request the opposite party has not vacated the tenanted premises. Paragraph no.10 of the plaint reads as under: “10. That cause of action arises on 02.09.2015 when the petitioner 1st time asked the Opposite Party to vacate the premises there after on 12.12.2015 on 07.01.2016 and on several dates” 6. By now it is widely accepted that cause of action is a bundle of facts which the plaintiff is required to prove during the trial of the suit. Whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff or not and whether the cause of action as pleaded under paragraph no.10 of the plaint are correct or not are not the issues which can be adjudicated in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In face of the aforesaid averments in the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and, therefore, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, that there is no tenant-landlord relationship and the plaintiff has failed to produce the tenancy-agreement or rent receipts and, therefore, she had no cause of action to institute the suit, is liable to be rejected. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be decided without permitting the parties to lead evidence in the suit. 7. Equally true would be the position in law on the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that J.B.C. Case No.15 of 2016 is barred by res-judicata. A plea of res-judicata is the defence which can be set up by the defendant. It is well-accepted that under order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC plaint can be rejected if it is found that the suit is barred by any law. At this stage, only the plaint averments can be looked into by the court and not the defence which may be set up by the defendant in the written-statement or raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 8. At this stage, only the plaint averments can be looked into by the court and not the defence which may be set up by the defendant in the written-statement or raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision in “Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal”- (2017) 13 SCC 174 to contend that once the application for amendment and addition of the petitioner was rejected in the J.B.C. Case No.47 of 2015 and the suit was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC against which an appeal shall lie, by clever drafting the plaintiff has now instituted a fresh suit against the petitioner which is not maintainable. 9. Order dated 12.08.2015 records that the plaintiff herself admits that there are defects in the plaint for correction of which applications were filed by the plaintiff. The Rent Controller has so observed in view of the application for amendment and the application for addition of Manisha Manjhi @ Manisha Mukherjee. Observing that a defective plaint is not maintainable, proceeding in J.B.C. Case No.47 of 2015 was closed by the Rent Controller. There is no finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground that no cause of action has been pleaded by the plaintiff. 10. In the aforesaid facts, by order dated 06.05.2016 the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed in J.B.C. case No.15 of 2016 has rightly been dismissed by the Rent Controller. Against this order the petitioner preferred J.B.C. Revision No.25 of 2016 which, in my opinion, has thus rightly been dismissed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 18.06.2018. 11. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed.