JUDGMENT H P Sandesh, J. - This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 15.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC in O.S.No.2366/2018 on the file of the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru allowing the said I.A. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant herein, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court had filed the suit against the respondents/defendants seeking for the following reliefs :- (a) to declare that the walls provided to the two schedule immovable properties are common walls and such walls cannot be demolished by defendant No.3 illegally and unauthorisedly; (b) for a decree of declaration declaring that the construction undertaken by defendant No.3 in the property which is the subject matter of notices under Sections 321(1), 321(2) and 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act pertaining to property No.109, 3rd Cross, Shantaveeraiah Lane, Bengaluru-560 002 is illegal, unlawful, without appropriate and proper permission granted; (c) to issue a decree of perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.3 from putting up any illegal and unlawful construction on the 'C' Schedule Property; and (d) for a direction directing the defendants Corporation to demolish the illegal, unauthorized construction and protect the property of the plaintiff described in Schedule 'B' property. 3. Respondent No.3, who is defendant No.3 before the Trial Court, had filed the Interlocutory Application, which is numbered as I.A.No.3 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint for want of cause of action. In support of the said application, an affidavit was sworn to stating that for want of cause of action, the plaint be rejected and also the relief which was sought by the plaintiff in the suit lies under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the said Act'). It is also averred that the civil suit is not maintainable and the relief claimed by the plaintiff is barred by the said Act. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing objections, wherein he has contended that the said interlocutory application has been filed only with an intention to harass the plaintiff and common wall question is involved in the suit. Defendant No.3 is making construction in violation of the approved plan and his construction is illegal and hence, sought for rejection of the said application. Defendant No.3 is making construction in violation of the approved plan and his construction is illegal and hence, sought for rejection of the said application. The Trial Court, after hearing the plaintiff as well as the defendants, allowed the application by coming to the conclusion that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is also barred by the said Act and rejected the plaint for want of cause of action against the defendants. 4. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, in the present appeal has challenged the allowing of the application in I.A.No.3 contending that the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made the owners of the suit schedule properties as parties to the proceedings and that no authority will give permission for illegal construction to the tenant, which is incorrect. What is culled out in the course of the order passed by the Trial Court is that the recitals in the written statement which is impermissible in law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal has contended that the Trial Court ought to have noticed that it has to read only the plaint averments and not written statement nor the application and its averments. The Trial Court ought to have noticed that the reliefs sought for in the present proceedings are not within the ambit of statutory provisions of the said Act and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint. The Trial Court has also erroneously come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has shown the cause of action as 31.01.2018, which is only the date of disposal of the Writ Petition No.455/2018 by this Court on the ground that the BBMP authorities have issued notice to defendant No.3. Hence, the order of the Trial Court is erroneous in nature and it requires interference of this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellantplaintiff in his arguments vehemently contended that there was a lease deed dated 16.04.2016 and in terms of the lease deed, lessee is authorized to put up construction. Hence, the suit is filed against defendant No.3, who is the tenant, who took up the construction. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellantplaintiff in his arguments vehemently contended that there was a lease deed dated 16.04.2016 and in terms of the lease deed, lessee is authorized to put up construction. Hence, the suit is filed against defendant No.3, who is the tenant, who took up the construction. The plaint averments are very much specific that defendant No.3 had taken up the construction work in violation of the sanctioned plan. When the specific averment has been made in the plaint, the Trial Court ought to have considered only the plaint averments and not the defence raised by the defendants. The very approach of the Trial Court in allowing the application filed by the defendants is erroneous and has misconstrued the prayer sought in the plaint. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in his arguments vehemently contended that the matter has already been ceased before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) and since the issuance of notice was challenged by the owners, there cannot be any suit against the defendants. The suit is barred by law and so also there is no cause of action against the defendants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 in his arguments vehemently contended that the owners of the suit schedule properties have not been made as parties to the proceedings and the suit is instituted against the tenant. The Trial Court, while considering the matter in paragraph No.12 of the order, has categorically mentioned that when the owners of the property have not been made as parties, common wall question cannot be adjudicated against the tenant. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellantplaintiff in his reply arguments submits that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 has erroneously made observations that owners are not made as parties to the proceedings and without making the owners of the suit schedule properties as parties to the proceedings, the suit filed against the tenant is not maintainable. It has further erred in observing that already defendant No.1 has initiated proceedings by issuing notice under Sections 321(1), 321(2) and 321(3) of the said Act. It has further erred in observing that already defendant No.1 has initiated proceedings by issuing notice under Sections 321(1), 321(2) and 321(3) of the said Act. Whether the work undertaken by defendant No.3 is illegal or legal, is to be considered in the appeal filed by the owners before the concerned authority and no relief of declaration can be granted. Learned counsel further contends that the plaintiff is the aggrieved party and rights of the plaintiff is infringed by the construction work taken up by the tenant. The fact that the tenant has undertaken the construction is not in dispute and the specific averment has been made in the plaint in that regard. Thus, the Trial Court has proceeded on a misconception, which requires interference of this Court. 10. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are as follows:- 1. Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application in I.A.No.3 filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and it requires interference of this Court? 2. What Order? Point No.1. 11. Before considering the grounds urged in the appeal, it is necessary to extract the Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for just conclusion, which reads as hereunder: 11. Rejection of Plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) xxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; 12. Before considering the factual aspects of the case, this Court would like to make it clear that Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is a mere procedure. The Court while considering Order VII of CPC must give a meaningful reading to the plaint as to whether it is manifestly vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue. Under the said circumstances only the Court can exercise its powers. A plaint can be rejected only if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Apart from the averments made in the plaint, the Court also can look into the documents filed with the plaint but nothing more. Under the said circumstances only the Court can exercise its powers. A plaint can be rejected only if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Apart from the averments made in the plaint, the Court also can look into the documents filed with the plaint but nothing more. While considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court cannot consider the defence set up by the defendants in their written statement only to determine whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not. The Court cannot look into the defence set up by the defendants in the written statement or the application filed by the defendants and it is only the facts pleaded in the plaint, which are to be taken into account. 13. Now coming to the averments made in the plaint and also the relief sought in the plaint, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that defendant No.3 has taken half share in the property bearing Old No.814, New No.6 situated at Shantaveeraiah Lane, Chikpete Cross, Bengaluru, which consists of Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor, on lease. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the property is divided under the deed of partition. The defendant No.3 has undertaken the construction work violating the sanctioned plan causing damage to the common wall of the plaintiff's property. In the plaint, it is specifically mentioned that the construction undertaken by defendant No.3 is illegal and defendant No.3 has demolished the property internally. The entire construction undertaken by defendant No.3 is unlawful and without any right in respect of the property of the plaintiff. It is also specifically contended that he has lodged several complaints to the Corporation authorities from 13.12.2017 and thereafter defendant Nos.1 and 2 have taken steps invoking the provisions of the said Act. 14. On perusal of the impugned order at paragraph No.10, it is clear that the Trial Judge has made the observation that the plaintiff in the relief column says that common wall question is involved. When such being the case, the plaintiff has not at all made the owners of the premises as parties to the suit. The licence and plan for construction must be in the name of the owner of the property. When such being the case, the plaintiff has not at all made the owners of the premises as parties to the suit. The licence and plan for construction must be in the name of the owner of the property. It is further observed that there is no law to provide permission to the tenant to make construction in the property of the owner. When such being the case, the plaintiff without making the owners of the suit schedule property as parties, has filed the suit against the tenant only by making the allegation that construction is illegal. The fact that a specific allegation is made against the tenant that he has undertaken the construction work, is not in dispute. When the specific averment is made in the plaint that the tenant has undertaken the construction work, the observation made by the Trial Court that there is no law to provide permission to the tenant to make construction in the property of the owner is erroneous. The specific case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that defendant No.3 has undertaken the construction work in violation of the licence and sanctioned plan. The plaintiff has specifically mentioned that the cause of action for the suit has arisen when the writ petition which was filed before the High Court was disposed of on 31.01.2018 observing that the BBMP authorities have issued notice to defendant No.3 for construction work. The Trial Court in paragraph No.11 made an observation that when the High Court itself has dismissed the writ petition stating that defendant No.1 has taken necessary action against defendant No.3, the suit cannot be maintained. The very approach of the Trial Court is nothing but misconception of law. 15. The relief sought in the plaint is very clear that the common walls cannot be demolished by defendant No.3 illegally and unauthorisedly. The second relief sought is with regard to the decree of declaration declaring that the construction undertaken by defendant No.3 is illegal, unlawful, without appropriate and proper permission. The Trial Judge misconstrued the second prayer. The plaintiff has only made the reference of initiation of the proceedings under Section 321 of the said Act and not sought any relief barred by law to invoke Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. The Trial Judge misconstrued the second prayer. The plaintiff has only made the reference of initiation of the proceedings under Section 321 of the said Act and not sought any relief barred by law to invoke Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. It appears that the Trial Court was under the confusion while allowing the application in I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. Further, it observed that the plaint is rejected for want of cause of action against the defendants but not mentioned that the suit is also barred by law. Initiation of proceedings by defendant Nos.1 and 2 is in respect of violation of the said Act, however, the same does not forbid the plaintiff to seek the remedies as sought in the plaint. The writ petition is disposed of only on the ground that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have taken steps regarding violation of the provisions of the said Act. 16. Having taken note of the averments made in the plaint and also the relief sought in the plaint, cause of action has been specifically mentioned and attributed the allegation against defendant No.3 that he has taken up illegal construction. May be the construction work undertaken by defendant No.3 is subject matter of the proceedings before the KAT initiated by the owners, but the same does not preclude the plaintiff in filing the suit for the relief of declaration in order to protect the common wall of the property, which is in question. The question of making the owner as party to the proceedings and whether they are necessary or not, cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Trial Court has committed an error in misconstruing Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and has erroneously passed the impugned order by entertaining I.A.No.3 which is filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. The very approach of the Trial Court while entertaining the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC is erroneous. The Trial Court has to see the averments made in the plaint as to whether it constitutes a cause of action and whether the same is barred by any law, but the same has not been considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has to see the averments made in the plaint as to whether it constitutes a cause of action and whether the same is barred by any law, but the same has not been considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court failed to consider the averments made in the plaint and instead defence of the defendants has been taken note of while coming to the conclusion that the owners have not been made as parties to the proceedings. Apart from that, an error has been committed by the Trial Court in observing that whether it is legal or illegal construction, is to be considered before the concerned authority and no relief of declaration can be granted. The contention of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the matter is ceased before the KAT, cannot be accepted and the findings of the Trial Court that the suit is not maintainable is erroneous. The said proceedings initiated before the KAT is with regard to validity of issuance of notice under Section 321 of the said Act as against the owners and the same does not preclude the plaintiff to file suit against the defendants for the relief as sought in the plaint. No doubt the plaintiff has filed the writ petition before this Court and the same is disposed of observing that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have already initiated the proceedings under the said Act. The infringement of the right of the plaintiff was in question in the said suit and the same is not barred by law. The Trial Court failed to distinguish the relief sought in the plaint and the relief sought in the writ petition and hence, the relief sought in the suit is not barred by any law to invoke Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has committed an error in entertaining the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC and it requires interference of this Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 as affirmative. 17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. Hence, I answer point No.1 as affirmative. 17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order of the Trial Court passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC in O.S.No.2366/2018 on the file of XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the suit on merits. (iv) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 28.09.2020 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court, since all the parties are represented through their respective counsel before this Court.