JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 08.06.2018 passed in Title Suit No.59 of 2003 by which the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected, is under challenge. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that a suit has been filed being Title Suit No.59 of 2003 wherein the plaintiffs to the suit stated that they were the tenant of defendant of one standing room of revisional survey plot No.58 of Khata No.130 corresponding to portion of Municipal Holding No.66 within new ward No.27 situated at Hinoo on a rent of Rs.600/-per month. The petitioner/defendant took a sum of Rs.25,000/-as security money from the plaintiff with an undertaking to return the same at the time when the plaintiff/respondent would vacate the premises and deliver the possession to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner several times took friendly loan from the respondent, lastly on 15.04.2000 the petitioner took a loan of Rs.20,000/-for the performance of the marriage of his sister and executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to pay the same within one year and the said agreement has been misutilized by the plaintiff by filing a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 15.04.2000. 3. The defendant has appeared and filed written statement denying the averment made in the plaint. 4. 3. The defendant has appeared and filed written statement denying the averment made in the plaint. 4. Subsequently, a petition was filed on 17.01.2018 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint stating therein that the plaintiff has got no right or locus standi as a tenant to claim relief under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as also on the ground that the said agreement has been entered into in between the parties for the purpose of giving loan amount for performing the marriage of his sister but according to the petitioner, the trial Court while dealing with the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has not properly appreciated and rejected the same on the ground that the trial court is only required to look into the pleadings made in the plaint by the plaintiff and not to look into the contention of the defendant raised through the written statement, the aforesaid order is not challenged by way of instant writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very intent of the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is to save the valuable time of the Court and save the parties from contesting the frivolous litigation and that is one of the case since the agreement dated 15.04.2000 having been entered for the purpose of giving a loan of Rs.20,000/-for performing the marriage of the sister of the plaintiff which would be evident from the face of the agreement dated 15.04.2000 which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition but the same has not been appreciated by the trial court, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the finding recorded in the impugned order, this Court thinks it fit and proper to go through the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. which reads hereunder as : “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 under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so 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 the 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 the plaintiff.] It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the plaint shall be rejected on the ground of condition stipulated therein i.e., where it does not disclose a cause of action; where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; 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; where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 7. 7. The petitioner has taken the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action if the plaint will be taken on its face. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relief upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 174 wherefrom it is evident that the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. if condition enumerated in the said provision are not fulfilled. It is evident therefrom that the averment of the plaint was to be read as a whole to find out whether the averment discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. The question as to whether the suit is barred by any law would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been observed in the said judgment that when the allegation made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if it shows that the suit is barred by any law or does not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order VII Rule 11 can be exercised but simultaneously it has been observed that the consideration is to be given with respect to the clever drafting of the plaint which has been drafted for creating an image of cause of action so that the bogus litigation may not be allowed to be carried out. 8. It is evident from the other judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Church of Christ Charitable Trust And Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, reported in 2012 (8) SCC 706 , pr. 13, 14 & 15 and Urvashiben & Anr. vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi, reported in J.T. 2018 (12) SCC 2017, pr. 15 that the trial court is only supposed to look into the cause of action which is evident from the bare reading of the plaint and the ground which has been raised by the defendant in written statement is not to be looked into by the trial court, respective paragraphs reads hereunder as : “13. While scrutinising the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. While scrutinising the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words “cause of action”. A cause of action must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. 14. In A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, this Court explained the meaning of “cause of action” as follows: (SCC p. 170, para 12) “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.” 15. It is useful to refer the judgment in Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under: (SCC p. 328, para 28) “28. It is useful to refer the judgment in Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under: (SCC p. 328, para 28) “28. By ‘cause of action’ it is meant 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, (Cooke v. Gill); in other words, a bundle of facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit.” It is mandatory that in order to get relief, the plaintiff has to aver all material facts. In other words, it is necessary for the plaintiff to aver and prove in order to succeed in the suit. 15. …………we are of the considered view that merits and demerits of the matte cannot be gone into at this stage, while deciding an application filed under O.VII, R.11 of the CPC. It is fairly well settled that at this stage only averments in the plaint are to be looked into........” 9. This Court on the basis of the said provision of law and the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court has examined the factual aspect wherefrom it is evident that the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 15.04.2000 has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent. 10. The copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure-1 wherefrom it is evident that the reference of the agreement dated 15.04.2000 has been made specifically at paragraph-5 which reads hereunder as:- “5. 10. The copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure-1 wherefrom it is evident that the reference of the agreement dated 15.04.2000 has been made specifically at paragraph-5 which reads hereunder as:- “5. That the defendant on receipt of a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only from the plaintiff on 15.4.2000 for performance of marriage of his sister executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to repay the said sum to the plaintiff within one year failing which the defendant would be bound to sell the property in occupation of the plaintiff.” It is evident from the said paragraph as also the statement made in other paragraphs that what has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs.20,000/-has been given by the plaintiff to the defendant by virtue of entering into the agreement dated 15.04.2000 for performance of marriage of his sister and the said amount was to be paid within a period of one year failing which the defendant would be bound to sell the property in occupation of the plaintiff. The said statement has been reiterated in the other paragraphs of the plaint. 11. It is, thus, evident that there is an agreement dated 15.04.2000 with a condition that in case of default in making payment of the loan amount, property in question is to be sold out by the defendant, meaning thereby, that the instrument has been created by way of agreement dated 15.04.2000 and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action by bare reading of the plaint and hence, the requirement as stipulated under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 (a) which pertains to lack of cause of action from bare reading of the plaint, is not available in this case. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate his case on the basis of the pleadings made in the written statement, at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, the defence as has been taken by the defendant in the written statement is not to be looked into by the trial court, it is for the reason that the rejection of plaint solely depends upon the cause of action to be reflected from the face of the plaint and the other condition stipulated under the said provision and if the written statement would be taken into consideration, then it will be adjudication on merit which is not permissible since the adjudication is only to be made by leading evidence by the respective parties. 13. This Court after taking into consideration the factual aspect as also the legal position as referred hereinabove is of the view that the finding recorded by the trial court is not in such a nature warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 14. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.