JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. This Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1977 is directed against the Order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the learned City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) in a Civil Suit titled Golden Globe Fitness Pvt. Ltd. v. F2Fun and Fitness (India) Private Ltd. and another whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. The petitioner herein was defendant No.1 in the trial Court, and the respondent No.1 herein was the plaintiff, who had filed the suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein. To avoid confusion, the parties are hereinafter referred to as “the defendant No.1” and “the plaintiff”. The facts, in nutshell, which have given rise to the filing of this Revision Petition are:- 2. The plaintiff a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 through its Managing Director filed a suit before the trial Court inter alia for a decree of declaration that the grant of Gold’s Gym sub franchisee by the defendant No.1 on behalf of the defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) in favour of the plaintiff was irrevocable and perpetual with consequential relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the defendant No.1 from terminating/disturbing/infringing sub franchisee of plaintiff Gold’s Gym. As is apparent from the plaint, suit was founded on an oral mutual agreement entered into between the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in his plaint, averred that the sub-franchisee of Gold’s Gym was granted by the defendant No.1 on behalf of the defendant No.2 to the plaintiff pursuant to an oral agreement in terms whereof a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid as premium in advance. The plaintiff, in the plaint, further claimed that the pursuant to the understanding arrived at between him and the defendant No.1, the plaintiff mobilized all his resources and established a Gym at Bahu Plaza, Jammu after investing about three crores. It was also claimed that apart from the premium of Rs.30,00,000/-, the defendant No.1 was also entitled to receive a normal monthly royalty payable by the plaintiff for the first three years from its commission. It was also claimed that apart from the premium of Rs.30,00,000/-, the defendant No.1 was also entitled to receive a normal monthly royalty payable by the plaintiff for the first three years from its commission. In nutshell, the case as set up by the defendant No.1 in the plaint was that sub franchisee was granted to the plaintiff subject to the terms and conditions which were not reduced into writing in the shape of any legally valid and binding document but were acted upon by the parties by their conduct. An oral contract, in essence, was set up by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also contends that it was served with a communication dated 14.03.2014 purportedly issued by some concern, namely, Gold’s Gym India whereby the plaintiff was intimated that by not honouring the commitment of the payment of royalty it had committed breach of contract. The plaintiff claimed to have sent a Legal Notice on 03.04.2014 to the respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in the suit) in which the plaintiff claimed to have exposed dubious and culpable business practices of the defendant No.1 with the connivance of respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in the suit). This annoyed the defendants and in pursuance of which the defendant No.2 through its Vice President Marketing threatened the termination of the plaintiff’s sub franchisee granted by the defendant No.1 on behalf of the respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in the suit). This gave a cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit against the defendant No.1 and the respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in the suit). This is the case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint. 3. The suit was entertained and the defendant No.1 and the respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in the suit) were summoned to appear and file written statement to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 filed an application in terms of the Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The application was filed on the plea that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and also that the suit from bare statement in the plaint is apparently barred by law. The defendant No.1 filed an application in terms of the Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The application was filed on the plea that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and also that the suit from bare statement in the plaint is apparently barred by law. In the application, it was pleaded that contrary to what is averred by the plaintiff in the plaint, relationship of the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff was governed by a written instrument, i.e., an agreement duly executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 laying down, in detail, the terms and conditions regulating the grant of sub franchisee in favour of the plaintiff for running a Gold’s Gym in Jammu. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has though referred to the agreement aforesaid in the plaint but did not place on record the copy thereof and by clever and skilful drafting set up a case of oral agreement to disclose cause of action and to maintain the suit which, otherwise, was barred by law. In short, in the application, it was pleaded by the applicant that from entire reading of the plaint, it would be apparent that the plaintiff had no cause of action to maintain the suit and in view of the specific ouster clause contained in the agreement, which was deliberately withheld by the plaintiff, the suit was not maintainable before the trial Court. 4. The trial Court considered the application filed by the defendant No.1 in absence of any objections by the plaintiff, who had chosen not to file any written objections. The trial Court after taking note of the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties ultimately came to the conclusion that the application moved by the defendant No.1 was not maintainable and the suit could not be thrown out at the threshold, particularly, when the plaintiff is yet to file the written statement and the issues raised by the defendant No.1 are matters for trial. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is necessary to first set out the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC:- “11. Rejection of plaint. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is necessary to first set out the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC:- “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 written 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; Provided that time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation, or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to be plaintiff.” 6. From the reading of the provision, it is clear that a plaint can be rejected, inter alia, on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action or if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. This power vested in the Civil Court can be invoked at any stage. Whether it is invoked at the threshold or later, the Court shall look into the plaint and the documents relied upon or filed therewith and if the Court from the meaningful reading of the plaint finds it manifestly vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court may exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, in a case where the validity of a particular document itself is under challenge, the same cannot be considered and decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The other material like written statement or the documents brought on the record by the defendant are irrelevant and the Court shall only look to the pleadings in the plaint to find out as to whether there is clear disclosure of cause of action to sue or whether from the statement in the plaint suit is apparently barred by any law. It may also be noted that it is not always necessary to decide the application at the threshold and the Court is competent to defer its consideration till the plaintiff is called upon to produce the documents on which he sues or relies upon as the evidence in support of his claim in terms of Order 7 Rule 14. The Court may, if it is necessary, consider the application for rejection of the plaint after recording the statement of the parties under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC. As already stated and reiterated, the power under Order 7 Rule 11 vested in the Civil Court can be exercised by it at any stage which the Court deems fit and proper, though it is always advisable to exercise it at the threshold to nip the evil in the bud. There is no point in putting the parties to a long drawn trial in a suit instituted on the basis of a still born plaint. 7. In the case of Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2003 (1) SCC 557 , it was held that the trial Court can exercise the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage, i.e., before registering the plaint or after issuing summon to the defendant at any time before conclusion of the trial and for doing so it would look into only the averments in the plaint; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. In I.T.C. Limited. Vs. In I.T.C. Limited. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others, reported in 1998 (2) SCC 70 , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is whether the real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. The aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon its earlier judgment rendered in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal reported in 1977 (4) SCC 467 . The paragraph No.5 of the judgment is noteworthy and reproduced hereunder:- “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending before the First Munsiff’s Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsiff 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, be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 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 X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi “It is dangerous to be too good.” 8. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi “It is dangerous to be too good.” 8. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property reported in 1998 (7) SCC 184 , the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 was applicable. 9. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection segregation and inversion 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. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered, primarily, from the tenor and terms of his pleading taken as whole but at the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach is adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities. Under clause (a), as noted above, a plaint which does not disclose cause of action entails its rejection. 10. The term “cause of action” as find mention in the clause (a) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a comprehensive term which needs its proper understanding. The “cause of action’ is bundle of facts which taken with law applicable to them gives the plaintiff right to sue against the defendant. (All facts which are necessary to be proved by the plaintiff to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms). The term “cause of action” has been very aptly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another v. A.P. Agencies, Saleem, reported in 1989 (2) SCC 163 . What was stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.12 with regard to the meaning of “cause of action” is as follows:- “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. What was stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.12 with regard to the meaning of “cause of action” is as follows:- “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. 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.” 11. Equally important is the proposition of law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in reference to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that where a document is sued upon and its term are not set out in the plaint but referred to in the plaint, the said document gets incorporated by reference in the plaint and this position has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran and another reported in 1989 (4) SCC 482 and Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaaurao Patil and another reported in 1996 (1) SCC 169 . 12. In the backdrop of above stated legal position the relevant clauses of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, i.e., clause (a) and clause (d) need to be adverted to. (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) ….. (c) ….. (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.” 13. Clause (a): Plaint does not disclose a cause of action. (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) ….. (c) ….. (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.” 13. Clause (a): Plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The expression “does not discloses cause of action” as used in clause (a) Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is clearly distinct from the expression “plaintiff has no cause of action”. In the case of former, the right to sue may exist but it is not well founded on the basis of the averments made in the plaint whereas in the case of latter, there is complete absence of right to sue. It is because of this reason, a provision is made in Rule 13 of Order 7 CPC, which provides that the rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 11 CPC shall not, of its own force, preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. It may be apt to reproduce Rule 13 of Order 7 CPC as well herein below:- “13. Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint. The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.” 14. It is this distinction between “existence of cause of action” and the “disclosure of cause of action” that needs to be maintained and borne in mind by the trial Court while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC. If from the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff has pleaded a cause of action for filing the suit and seeking the reliefs prayed for, it would allow the suit to proceed. Whether or not the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit for the reliefs sought is a question to be determined on the basis of the material which may be produced by the parties at appropriate stage in the suit. 15. Clause (d): Suit barred by any law. As is apparent from the bare reading of the clause, where a suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the same can be rejected at the threshold. 15. Clause (d): Suit barred by any law. As is apparent from the bare reading of the clause, where a suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the same can be rejected at the threshold. For this purpose also, the Court would look into only the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon and referred to in the plaint. The “suit barred by law” is very extensive statement having wider connotation. The suit may be barred for one reason or the other and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain is ousted by law. For example, a suit raising a dispute between a Landlord and a Tenant with respect to the land as defined under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 may be barred in view of the ouster clause contained in Section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. Similarly, a suit filed for determination of dispute between a Member and the Management touching the constitution, the management or business of a cooperative society would be barred in view of the provisions of Section 175 of the J&K Co-operative Society Act, 1989. For the purpose of finding as to whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted by any specific provision of law, a Civil Court is enjoined to look into the averments of the plaint in its entirety, as also the documents sued upon or relied upon to substantiate the averments. If the Court on such scrutiny opines that the suit on the face of it is barred by a particular provision of law, it would not hesitate to reject the same at its threshold as the same is required to nip the evil in the bud and to save the parties from the unnecessary harassment. The position, however, would be different if the suit is found to have been instituted in a Court having no territorial jurisdiction. In such situation, it would be appropriate to invoke Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and return the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may not be the option available to the Civil Court. 16. In such situation, it would be appropriate to invoke Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and return the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may not be the option available to the Civil Court. 16. From the discussion made hereinabove, the law relating to extent and scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be summed up in the following manner:- (i) That the provisions of Order No.7 Rule 11 CPC can be resorted to at any stage of the suit. It is, however, appropriate to exercise this power at the threshold so as to nip the evil in the bud and save the parties from unnecessary harassment, expense and waste of time. This would also prevent the piling up of the unnecessary and avoidable litigation. (ii) That apart from other grounds, the suit can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action. The “disclosure of cause of action” is distinct from the “existence of cause of action” and the Court must bear in mind this distinction while dealing with the application of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (iii) That a plaint can also be rejected at the threshold or at a subsequent stage if from the statement made in the plaint it is apparent that the suit is barred by any law. The still born suits are required to be weeded out at the first available opportunity. (iv) For determining as to whether or not the plaint discloses a cause of action or is apparently barred by law, the Court only needs to look into the averments in the plaint, the defence of the defendant and the averments in the written statement are irrelevant. The Court must remember that if on meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The disclosure of the cause of action in the plaint has to be real and supported by requisite averments and should not be illusion of cause of action created by the clever and skilful drafting. The Court must see to the pleadings in entirety to find out whether there is real disclosure of cause of action or only illusion created. The disclosure of the cause of action in the plaint has to be real and supported by requisite averments and should not be illusion of cause of action created by the clever and skilful drafting. The Court must see to the pleadings in entirety to find out whether there is real disclosure of cause of action or only illusion created. (v) For finding out as to whether or not there is a disclosure of cause of action or whether or not the suit is barred by law, the Court is enjoined to read the plaint as a whole to ascertain its true import and there cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversion of language of various paragraphs in the plaint. The intention of the party is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and the terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. Though, it is to be borne in mind that no pedantic approach is adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities. (vi) That the documents sued upon or referred to in the plaint are to be taken as part of the plaint and should also be looked into to find out as to whether the plaint is or is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The documents sued upon and referred to but terms thereof not set out in the plaint are to be taken as part of the plaint is now well-established. 17. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal principles, the case in hand needs to be examined. As is apparent from its bare reading, the application filed by the applicant invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint is based on two counts:- (a) That the averments made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action, in that, the plaintiff has relied upon on an oral agreement, though he has specifically referred to an agreement executed between the parties; (b) That in terms of the mutually settled agreement which is duly executed between the parties, the suit is barred as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted and in view of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, the parties are liable to be relegated to arbitration. 18. 18. Apart from highlighting the aforesaid two situations, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant No.1 vehemently submits that the plaintiff by clever and skilful drafting has only created an illusion of cause of action and a bare reading of the averments in the plaint in its entirety along with the documents referred to in the plaint, it is abundantly clear that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendants. He further submits that by withholding the agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 which governs the terms and conditions of sub franchisee granted by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff, plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court and therefore, would not be entitled to seek the discretionary relief of declaration and injunction under the provisions of J&K Specific Relief Act. He further submits that had the plaintiff placed on the record the agreement aforesaid, his plaint would have been rejected by the trial Court without even summoning the defendants in the suit as agreement contains a clause which ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Jammu and also makes it mandatory for the parties to go for arbitration in case of any dispute. He refers to the relevant clauses of the agreement, which provide for arbitration in case of dispute between the parties and also stipulate that the Civil Courts at Mumbai alone shall have jurisdiction whereby impliedly ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Jammu. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that though there is a reference to some draft agreement proposed by the defendant No.1 at the time of grant of sub franchisee, but the same did not go through a legal process and the relationship came to be regulated and determined by the terms and conditions agreed to between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 orally. He further states that it is his positive case in the plaint that there is no legally enforceable document governing their relationship and the establishment of the Gym at Jammu with the grant of sub franchisee by the defendant No.1 is regulated by an oral agreement which has been acted upon by both the parties. He further states that it is his positive case in the plaint that there is no legally enforceable document governing their relationship and the establishment of the Gym at Jammu with the grant of sub franchisee by the defendant No.1 is regulated by an oral agreement which has been acted upon by both the parties. Learned counsel also takes this Court to the legal position that at stage of considering the application for rejection of the plaint, the Court only needs to look to the averments in the plaint and cannot take into consideration the possible defences, the defendant would take in the suit. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner-defendant No.1 has miserably failed to make out any ground for rejection of the plaint and his application was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. 20. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the plaint chalking out the sequence of events leading to the cause of action to file the suit by the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, there is clear reference to some agreement executed between the parties. Although, the plaintiff in his plaint has very skilfully dealt with the “agreement” by styling it as “draft agreement” proposed by the defendant No.1, yet if we carefully read the averments in the plaint in its entirety in juxtaposition with the documents appended with the plaint including the Legal Notice served upon the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff before institution of the suit, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff is well aware of the existence of agreement executed between the parties. He has not challenged the agreement on the grounds that may be available to him but has cleverly avoided to do it, may be, to avoid its earlier consequences. 21. Be that at it may, the trial Court appears to be right in coming to the conclusion that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 was not maintainable at the threshold. The agreement which has been placed on record by the petitioner-defendant No.1 along with his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rightly not looked into by the trial Court as the law does not permit such course of action. The agreement which has been placed on record by the petitioner-defendant No.1 along with his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rightly not looked into by the trial Court as the law does not permit such course of action. It was, however, a fit case where the consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could have been deferred by the trial Court and the resort could have been had to Rule 14 of Order 7 CPC by directing the plaintiff to produce the document, i.e., agreement referred to by the plaintiff in the plaint as draft agreement purportedly signed by someone on behalf of the plaintiff. He could have even waited for recording the statements of the parties in terms of Order 10 Rule 1 CPC and resorted to other provisions of the Code pertaining to discovery of documents etc. True it is, at the threshold stage, the trial Court is not permitted to look into all these aspects and would be bound by the averments made in the plaint to find out as to whether or not the suit discloses a cause of action, or whether or not it is apparently barred by any law. 22. Viewed in the light of the legal position adumbrated herein above and the factual matrix of the instant case, I find substance in the submission of learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant No.1 that the trial Court should have deferred the consideration of the application moved by petitioner-defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC till such time, plaintiff could be proceeded under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for production of the documents referred to by him in the plaint and also till the statement of the parties in terms of Order 10 Rule 1 CPC are recorded by the trial Court. Thus, this Court finds that it was a case where the trial Court should not have rejected the application, at this stage. 23. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision Petition is allowed. Thus, this Court finds that it was a case where the trial Court should not have rejected the application, at this stage. 23. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision Petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.07.2018 passed by the learned City judge, Jammu in File No.326-A/Misc is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for taking up for consideration the application moved by the petitioner-defendant No.1 for rejection of the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC after the plaintiff files the documents sued upon or relied upon as evidence in support of his claim in terms of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and other enabling provisions pertaining to the discovery and production of documents and also after recording the statements of the parties under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC. The trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and enumerated hereinabove in this judgment. The observations made hereinabove are only tentative and for the disposal of this petition and should not be taken as expression of opinion on merits. 24. Before parting with this judgment, I deem it appropriate to bring it to the notice of the Civil Courts of original as well as the appellate jurisdiction to take note of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and enumerated hereinabove in this judgment, and to see that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, wherever applicable, are invoked at the threshold and in any case before the issuance of the summons to the defendant, subject, of course, to the exceptions discussed above where, under certain circumstances, consideration of the application is required to be deferred. The object underlying under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC is to nip the evil in the bud. When no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or the Court finds that having regard to the statement in the plaint, it is apparent that the suit is barred by law, the Court will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of the suit. This would save party defendant from unnecessarily harassment in a suit. The provision is intended to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid court resources being eaten up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. This would save party defendant from unnecessarily harassment in a suit. The provision is intended to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid court resources being eaten up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. A litigation which in the opinion of the Court is bound to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a devise to harass the litigants. There is no point flogging a dead horse and the Court should not entertain a suit in a routine manner. It should, on its presentation, go through the averments made in the plaint carefully to find out as to whether it really discloses a cause of action or not. This can be achieved by the Court by careful reading of the plaint in its entirety along with documents sued upon, relied upon or referred to in the plaint. The Court must also look through the attempt of the party suing to create an illusion of cause of action by clever, skilful and crafty drafting of the plaint. Such course if adopted by the Courts at the threshold would not only save the litigant-defendant of unnecessarily harassment but would also prevent the unnecessary burdening of the docket of the Courts. Most of the litigation can be avoided if the Courts are vigilant and exercise the powers vested in them for weeding out the still born litigation by having resort to the provisions like Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. A note of caution to the Civil Courts, however, is that such power should be exercised on the well-established parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments handed down from time to time but the Courts must avoid adopting a narrow and pedantic approach while dealing with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. This Court has noticed that the Civil Courts have barely exercised the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC suo moto and rejected the plaint without summoning the defendant(s). Invariably the Courts have exercised this jurisdiction only upon an application moved by the defendant. This Court has noticed that the Civil Courts have barely exercised the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC suo moto and rejected the plaint without summoning the defendant(s). Invariably the Courts have exercised this jurisdiction only upon an application moved by the defendant. The time has come to remind all the Courts exercising the civil jurisdiction to make meaningful use of the power vested in them under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and not to entertain the plaints, which do not disclose any cause of action or which are apparently barred by law having regard to the statements made in the plaint. I am sure, if this power is used at the very threshold, unnecessary litigation burdening the Civil Courts to a greater extent would be lessened. 25. Registrar Judicial of this Court is directed to supply copy of this order to the Registrar General of this Court, who shall circulate to all the Courts subordinate to this Court exercising civil jurisdiction in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 26. Disposed of as above along with connected IA(s).