JUDGMENT : 1. This first appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a suit for declaration, cancellation of the Patta and Gift Deed and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent, wherein it was stated that the plot Nos.12 & 13 admeasuring 256 square yards, Kailashpuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur were purchased by the plaintiff and Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma jointly, but late Pawan Kumar Sharma got the lease deed of the plot issued in the name of defendant No.4. The lease deed was transferred subsequently in the name of defendant No.3 through a gift deed. This fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff when late Shri Pawan Kumar filed a written statement in another suit. 3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant-respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since the relief sought for by the plaintiff for cancellation of lease deed dated 23.02.2002 and registered gift deed dated 30.03.2005 through a suit which was filed on 07.01.2013, the suit was barred by limitation. The relief of declaration has been sought after a period of 10 years from the date of expiry of the period of limitation. It is also alleged in the application that the plaintiff has no right or authority to institute the present suit as it discloses no cause of action. Since plaintiff has not filed any document in support of the plaint, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 4. The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a reply to the said application. 5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court allowed the application by impugned order and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 6. Hence, this first appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kapil Gupta, that the learned trial court wrongly rejected the plaint on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action. Cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. 6. Hence, this first appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kapil Gupta, that the learned trial court wrongly rejected the plaint on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action. Cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. The learned trial court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of non filing of document. The learned trial court has failed to consider and appreciate the fact that it was specifically pleaded in the plaint that the disputed property was purchased by the plaintiff and late Pawan Kumar Sharma jointly. A written document was executed by Shri Pawan Kumar in this regard and the same was handed over to the appellant-plaintiff. It was specifically pleaded that cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff on disclosing the fact of issuance of Patta and execution of gift deed by the defendants in the written statement filed in the suit for permanent injunction. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, Shri K N Sharma, has supported the impugned order. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is trite that in deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court has to look into the averments contained in the plaint in totality and the documents filed in support of the plaint. At this stage, the defence raised by the defendant in the written statement is immaterial. For this purpose, the court has to scrutinise the plaint averments in a meaningful manner. To come to the conclusion whether or not cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint, the hair-splitting technicalities should be avoided and intention of the plaintiff should be gathered from the tenor and the terms of the pleadings in totality. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004) 3 SCC 137 , after taking into consideration some of the previous judgments, set out criterion to find out accrual of cause of action within the meaning of clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. The Court held: 15. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. The Court held: 15. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities. 13. In Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh & Ors., AIR 2012 Supreme Court 3023, Hon’ble Apex Court has restated the same principles and also held that pleas raised in the written statement are totally irrelevant for deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court observed as under:- “8. The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in its written statements would be irrelevant. [vide C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai and another, (2007) 14 SCC 183 : ( AIR 2008 SC 363 : 2007 13 AIR SCW 6953), Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others, (2007) 10 SCC 59 , Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 SCC 614 : (2007 AIR SCW 3456), Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and others v. Owners and Parties Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others, (2006) 3 SCC 100 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1828 : 2006 AIR SCW 863), Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004) 3 SCC 137 : ( AIR 2004 SC 1801 : 2004 AIR SCW 799), Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557 : ( AIR 2003 SC 759 : 2003 AIR SCW 174)]. The above view has been once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman v. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, 2012 (6) JT 149 : (2012 AIR SCW 4136).” 14. In South East Asia Shipping Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 443, Hon’ble Apex Court explains cause of action as under:- “It consists of bundle of facts which can cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in a court of law. It must include some act done by the defendant.” 15. In the light of above legal position, I have carefully perused the plaint averments, more particularly the averments made in paras 2, 3 & 7 and the prayer clause. A harmonious reading of the plaint ipso facto reveals that the property was purchased by the plaintiff and Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma for a consideration of Rs.2,05,000/- and in this regard, a written document was executed by Shri Pawan Kumar. A bare perusal of the plaint shows that the suit property was allotted vide a lease in favour of the defendant No.4 by the JDA and thereafter, the same was gifted by a registered gift deed by the defendant No.4 to defendant No.3 and relief sought for by the plaintiff is cancellation of the said lease deed issued by JDA in favour of the defendant No.4 and registered gift deed dated 30.05.2005 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of the defendant No.3. 16. The learned trial court, while allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has observed that the plaintiff has not placed on record any document of title or any document in support of the averments made in the plaint allegation that he has no right, title or interest in the disputed property and only a bald statement has been made as regards the suit property having been purchased by him jointly with father of defendant No.1 to 3. 17. In my considered view, it was specifically pleaded in the plaint that the property was jointly purchased by the plaintiff and late Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, this question is to be decided only after taking evidence of both the parties. 17. In my considered view, it was specifically pleaded in the plaint that the property was jointly purchased by the plaintiff and late Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, this question is to be decided only after taking evidence of both the parties. At this stage, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no right to file present suit and no cause of action has been disclosed. Merely, non filing of title document along with the suit no ground to reject the plaint and the same is not within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Document can be filed at a later stage by virtue of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. 18. It is pertinent that after rejecting the plaint in para 14 of the impugned order, the learned trial court made following observation in the next paragraph:- “15. The observations made herein are confined to the adjudication on the application only & ought not to be taken as expression on merits of the rival claims of the parties in this suit by this Court.” 19. The said observations are self contradictory. On the one hand, the plaint has been rejected and on the other hand, it was observed that the order shall not effect the merits of the case. 20. From the above discussions, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the trial court dated 16.11.2013 is liable to be quashed. 21. Hence, the appeal is allowed and order passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the suit in accordance with the law. Both the parties are directed to remain present in the trial court on 15.03.2018.