Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 454 (CHH)

Randhir Singh Khanuja S/o Shri Jaspal Singh Khanuja v. Chetna Malu W/o Shri Sanjay Malu

2023-09-04

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS

body2023
ORDER : 1. The petitioner/defendant No. 8 has filed this civil revision against the order dated 07-02-2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the First Civil Judge Class-II Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. S-62-A/2022 by which the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the count that the provisions of Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code (for short, “the Code”) are not attracted to the facts of the present case as in the revenue records, the name of plaintiff -Chetna Malu is recorded. This order is being assailed by the petitioner in this Civil Revision. 2. The facts of the case as projected by the petitioner in Civil Revision are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit No. S-62-A/2022 before the Civil Judge Class II Mahasamund, District Mahasamund for declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of possession after demolition of ongoing construction in the suit property and also grant vacant possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 1237/17/1 area 0.018 hectare and Khasra No. 1237/17/2 area measuring 375 sq.ft situated at Ashram Road, Vasant Colony Tehsil Mahasamund to the plaintiff. The brief plaint averments are that the suit property is diverted plot and recorded in the name of the plaintiff in revenue records. It is also case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Khasra No. 1237/17/1 was purchased through registered sale deed 24-10-2019 from Vinod Kumar Jain and she has taken possession. The suit property bearing Khasra No. 1237/17/2 has been purchased from seller Vinod Kumar Jain Agro Exim Pvt. Limited on 11-06-2020. Other property of the plaintiff and her husband was also there which is not in dispute. Plaint averment further shows that the defendant No. 8/ present petitioner has illegally taken possession two months prior on the suit property measuring 1740 sq.ft and started illegal construction. Defendant No. 8 is continuing the illegal construction on the suit property. It is also case of the plaintiff that the grassland 6 ft. wide and 91.56 ft long area of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1238/15/1 and 1238/15/2 total area 3000 sq.ft. belongs defendant No. 9 and 10 which is not in dispute. 3. Defendant No. 8 is continuing the illegal construction on the suit property. It is also case of the plaintiff that the grassland 6 ft. wide and 91.56 ft long area of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1238/15/1 and 1238/15/2 total area 3000 sq.ft. belongs defendant No. 9 and 10 which is not in dispute. 3. On these pleadings, the plaintiff has prayed for declaration that the defendant No. 8 who on the strength of defendant No. 1 to 6 is doing illegal construction on the suit property of the plaintiff as such the defendant No. 1 to 8 may be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the suit property. 4. Defendant No.8/petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC mainly contending that the original land of suit property bearing Khasra No. 1237 is recorded as Government land in the Revenue records and this land was never transferred by the Government to anyone, therefore, it is not disputed that the suit property is grassland recorded in the Revenue records and the plaintiff was well aware of the fact, therefore, the defendant No. 8 has filed the petitions before this Court bearing WPC No. 1291/22 and WPC No. 4030 of 2023 in the name and style of Ramesh Singh Kanojiya wherein this Court had passed interim order on 11-03-2022 in WPC No. 1291 of 2022. The order was passed with regard to Khasra No. 1237 and copy of the order was also enclosed with the application. It is also case of the defendant No.8 that in that case plaintiff was also Party to the proceeding and has also submitted reply. Since it is a Government land, therefore, the plaintiff has not made the Collector as party, therefore, the suit is not maintainable and he has also stated that since no mandatory legal notice as provided under Section 80 of the CPC was given, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It has also been stated that with regard to Khasra Number, the defendant No. 8 has also moved an application before the Tehsildar Mahasamund, under Section 248 of Land Revenue Code which has been registered and next date of hearing has been given on 08.12.2022. It has also been stated that with regard to Khasra Number, the defendant No. 8 has also moved an application before the Tehsildar Mahasamund, under Section 248 of Land Revenue Code which has been registered and next date of hearing has been given on 08.12.2022. It is also contended that as per Section 57 of the Land Revenue Code, if any dispute pertains to Government land by the landlord, then it can be adjudicated by the Collector under Section 257(1) ¼d½ therefore, the proceeding can be adjudicated by the Revenue Court and as per Section 9 of the CPC the suit is barred by jurisdiction and thus, he would pray for dismissal of the suit as barred by jurisdiction. 5. This Court after hearing the submissions issued notice to the respondent No. 1 who has already entered appearance on caveat therefore, no notice was required to be issued to him and the Revision was admitted for hearing by this Court vide order dated 02-03-2023 and further proceedings of the civil suit pending before First Civil Judge Class 2 Mahasamund was stayed till further orders. 6. Respondent No.1 has filed reply to the application and also filed an application for vacating the stay order passed by this Court, mainly contending that the pleadings which have been made in the plaint have to be considered while deciding the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The learned Trial Court has considered the pleadings made in the application and accordingly it has dismissed the application. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge is legal and justified and would submit that the learned Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error which can be considered while hearing the Revision Petition and would pray for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 7. The respondent No.1 has also filed an application for vacating the interim order. In view of the order passed by this Court, on 17-04-2023 the matter was listed for final hearing in the motion hearing stage itself. Thereafter, the case was listed on 21-04-2023, accordingly the arguments were heard. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below. 9. In view of the order passed by this Court, on 17-04-2023 the matter was listed for final hearing in the motion hearing stage itself. Thereafter, the case was listed on 21-04-2023, accordingly the arguments were heard. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable in view of the Bar contained in Section 257 of the CPC as the subject matter in the suit exclusively falls within the ambit of jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and he would submit that since the jurisdictional issue was involved, therefore, the learned Trial Court should have framed the preliminary issue as per Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC because Section 257 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is applicable to the present dispute raised in this case as subject matter as per Revenue Code. Thus, the suit is barred as per Section 9 of CPC, therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from perversity and illegality and would pray for allowing the Revision Petition. To substantiate his submissions he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Surya Developers and Promoters vs N. Sailesh Prasad and others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 736 , Frost International Limited versus Milan Developers & Builders Pvt. Limited and another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 633 and Patil Automation Pvt Limited and others vs Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Limited reported in (2022) 10 SCC 1 . 10. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that the order passed by the Trial Court is legal and justified and Trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner on the basis of the pleadings made in the plaint and it is well settled position of law that for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC., the pleadings made in the plaint have to be considered. The plaintiff has clearly set out the cause of action and has also pleaded that the case was made out for maintaining the suit. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly passed the order and would pray for dismissal of the petition. The plaintiff has clearly set out the cause of action and has also pleaded that the case was made out for maintaining the suit. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly passed the order and would pray for dismissal of the petition. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 plaintiff has referred to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Kishore and others Versus Brahmn Prakash and others in Civil Appeal No. 1948/2013 decided on 29.03.2023, Shrihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Jhemant Vithal Kamat and others, reported in 2021 (9) SCC 99 , Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal (Since deceased through Legal representatives) and others, reported in 2019 (4) SCC 367 , Soumitra Kumar Sen vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen and others, reported in 2018 (5) SCC 644 Gurdev Singh Vs Harvinder Singh, reported in 2022 Live law 2021(9) (SC) 963. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 12. From the submissions made by the parties, the point to be emerged for determination by this Court is :- “Whether the suit was barred by provisions of Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code and whether the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC filed by the defendant No. 8.” 13. Before adverting the submissions, it is expedient for this Court to extract provisions of Section 257 of Land Revenue Code, which reads as under:- “257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities. - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters :- (a) any decision regarding any right under sub-section (1) of Section 57 between the State Government and any person. [(a-1)] any decision regarding the purpose to which land is appropriated under Section 59; (b) any question as to the validity or effect of the notification of a revenue survey or any question as to the term of a settlement; (c) any claim to modify a decision determining abadi made by a Settlement Officer or Collector; (d) any claim against the State Government to hold land free of land revenue, or at less than the fair assessment, or to be assigned in whole or in part the land revenue assessed on any land; (e) the amount of land revenue assessed or reassessed under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force; (f) any claim against the State Government to have any entry made in any land records or to have any such entry omitted or amended. (g) any question regarding the demarcation of boundaries or fixing of boundary marks under Chapter X; (h) any claim against the State Government connected with or arising out of, the collection of land revenue or the recovery of any sum which is recoverable as land revenue under this Code or any other enactment; (i) any claim against the State Government or against a Revenue Officer for remission or suspension of land revenue, or for a declaration that crops have failed in any year; (j) any decision regarding forfeiture in cases of certain transfers under Section 166; (k) ejectment of a lesser of a bhumiswami under sub-section (4) of Section 168; (l) any claim to set aside transfer by a bhumiswami under subsection (1) of Section 170 and clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of Section 170-A; (l-1) any matter covered under Section 170-B. (m) ejectment of a Government lessee under Section 182; (n) resumption by a bhumiswami of land held by an occupancy tenant under Section 189 and the fixation of rent of land left, if any, with the occupancy tenant; (o) claims by occupancy tenants for conferral of the rights of bhumiswami under Section 190; (p) restoration of possession to an occupancy tenant under Section 191, (q) termination of tenancy of an occupancy tenant under Section 193; (r) any claim to set aside transfer by an occupancy tenant under Section 197; (s) the imposition of penalty on a bhumiswami under Section 200; (t) suspension and remission of rent under Section 201, (u) any decision regarding reinstatement of wrongfully ejected occupancy tenant under Section 202; (v) amount payable as compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 209, confirmation of the scheme for consolidation of holdings under Section 210, transfers of rights in carrying out the scheme under Section 213 and assessment and apportionment of costs of consolidation of holdings under Section 215; (w) any claim to modify any entry in the Nistar Patrak; (w-i) any decision regarding penalty under Section 248, for unauthorisedly taking possession of land. (x) any decision regarding reinstatement of a bhumiswami improperly dispossessed under Section 250; (x-i) any decision regarding confinement in civil prison under Section 250-A; (x-ii) any decision regarding delivery of actual possession of land to the bhumiswami or the Government Lessee under Section 250 B. (y) any decision regarding vesting of tanks in State Government under Section 251 and any claim against the State Government arising thereunder; (z) any claim against the State Government to set aside or modify any premium, penalty, cess or rate imposed or assessed under the provisions of this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force; (z-1) any claim against the State Government arising under Section 255 regarding prescription of standard cultivation and management; (z-2) any claim to compel the performance of any duty imposed by this Code on any Revenue Officer or other officer appointed under this Code.” 14. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the provisions of Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code have come up for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of wherein Hon'ble Madhya High Court in case of Shivnath Prasad Shrivastava (Supra), has held at paragraph 11 as under:- “11. Obviously no remedy was available to the petitioners under Section 116 of the Code because the entry was more than one year old. It is noteworthy that well known commentary on the Code by Dr. Harihar Nivas Dwivedi on page 468 has given a long list of cases in which an entry made in the previous year was not corrected on the ground of its being time barred. It is further noteworthy that in Batulbi v. Munnawar Khan ( 1982 MPWN 304 ), this High Court has held that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to direct correction of entries in revenue record. This is in exclusive jurisdiction of a Revenue Court.” 18. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Devinder Singh (Supra), has held at paragraph 17 as under:- “17. The principles culled out from various decisions of this Court are that even when the statute has given finality to the orders of the special tribunal, the Civil Court's jurisdiction can be regarded as having been excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Court would normally do in a suit. The principles culled out from various decisions of this Court are that even when the statute has given finality to the orders of the special tribunal, the Civil Court's jurisdiction can be regarded as having been excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Court would normally do in a suit. Section 26(1)(d) on the other hand specifically excludes jurisdiction of the Civil Court so far as matters which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, Collector or prescribed Authority. The entitlement, choice of land and the allotment are matters which are to be dealt with specifically by the authorities under the Act. Additionally, Section 18 provides a forum to ventilate the grievances under the Act in respect of several matters. This is a case of exclusion of the remedy in certain contingencies. It is not a case where the controversy cannot be resolved by the forum provided under the Act. Further in case of any grievance, the validity of the order could have been questioned before the forum provided. That has not been done and on the other hand, the suit was filed after about nine years.” 15. Opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 would refer to the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Government of M.P. & others Vs. Ishwar Chandra, 2016 (4) CGLJ 512 , wherein it has been held at paragraphs 16 & 17 as under:- “16. The Full Bench finally answered the reference by holding that a party aggrieved is entitled to maintain civil suit to establish his title and held as under:- "17. We, therefore, hold that a Bhumiswami is not bound to avail himself of the speedy remedy provided in Section 250 of the Code. It is open to him to take recourse to the summary remedy under Section 250, or even without it straightway bring a suit in the Civil Court for declaration of his title and possession. Even if there has been a decision under Section 250 by a revenue Court, the party aggrieved may institute a civil suit to establish his title to the disputed land. We further hold that Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, AIR 1967 M. P. 14 = 1964 Jab LJ 707 was correctly decided. Even if there has been a decision under Section 250 by a revenue Court, the party aggrieved may institute a civil suit to establish his title to the disputed land. We further hold that Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, AIR 1967 M. P. 14 = 1964 Jab LJ 707 was correctly decided. The Civil Court can take cognizance of a suit. This is our answer to the questions referred to us." 17. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rohini Prasad and others v. Kasturchand and another, (2000) 3 SCC 668 noticed the Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court with approval in S.A.No.72/2005 Ramgopal (supra) and held that the civil suit for possession based on title is triable by the Civil Court and held as under:- "8. ......... In three different appeals coming to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Hon'ble Judges sitting singly have consistently held that the civil suit of possession based on title is triable by the Civil Court. That being the law laid by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while interpreting the code which applies to the State of Madhya Pradesh and having held the field for all these years, it is not desirable for the Supreme Court to give a different interpretation and to upset the settled law. Merely because a different view is possible and that on that ground the decision of the High Court is erroneous, in our view, should not be a ground to interfere. Law should be certain and parties should know where they stand." 16. Now coming the facts of the case, considering the pleadings made by the plaintiff in the plaint wherein the plaintiff has claimed that the defendants may be kindly restrained from interfering in the suit land which is in possession and owned by her, thus, the plaintiff is claiming title and vacant possession of the suit land as such, it is purely title dispute between the parties, therefore, law has been well settled by the Hon’ble High Court as well as by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that the title dispute can be resolved through civil suit only and the revenue records/orders are incidental. As such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that Section 57 or 257 of the Land Revenue Code, is not attracted, is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. As such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that Section 57 or 257 of the Land Revenue Code, is not attracted, is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Even otherwise, law has been well settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The pleading made in the plaint has to be examined by learned trial Court and not the defence taken by the defendant. The learned trial Court while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has not examined the defence taken by the defendant, which is permissible and as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. The Centra Bank of India & another2, wherein it has been held as under:- “19. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr. [ (2004) 3 SCC 137 ] this Court held thus:(SCC pp. 146-47, para 15) “15. There be 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 hairsplitting technicalities.” 20. For our purpose, Clause (d) is relevant. It makes it clear that if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, it is the duty of the person who files such an application to satisfy the court that the plaint does not disclose how the same is in time. It makes it clear that if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, it is the duty of the person who files such an application to satisfy the court that the plaint does not disclose how the same is in time. In order to answer the said question, it is incumbent on the part of the court to verify the entire plaint. Order 7 Rule 12 mandates where a plaint is rejected, the court has to record the order to that effect with the reasons for such order.” On the same lines, this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2020) 17 SCC 260 , observed as follows: “10 … It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the court has no other option except to reject the same. A reading of the above provision also makes it clear that power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial. 11. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 , in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under: (SCC p. 560, para 9) “9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.” It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. vs. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100 .” 17. Now, coming to the facts of the present case and considering the plaint averment wherein the plaintiff has specifically prayed for restraining the respondent No. 1 to 8 from interfering the peaceful possession of the suit land, the relief sought by the petitioner for declaration and grant of permanent injunction the Trial Court has to decide the case with regard to declaration, title and possession. This relief can only be considered by the Trial Court not by the Revenue Court, whether the suit land is Government land and whether the land bearing Khasra No. 1237 which according to the petitioner is original land/grassland or not that can be adjudicated while recording of the evidence before the Trial Court. This relief can only be considered by the Trial Court not by the Revenue Court, whether the suit land is Government land and whether the land bearing Khasra No. 1237 which according to the petitioner is original land/grassland or not that can be adjudicated while recording of the evidence before the Trial Court. The averments made in the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC filed by the defendant No. 1 are his defense which can be adjudicated only after evidence is proved and documents and material are placed on record before the Trial Court. In absence of any such material the Trial Court cannot reach to the conclusion that suit property is a Government land. Even it is well settled question of law that while considering application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC only pleadings in the plaint have to be taken into consideration. This view has already been reiterated and well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Surya Developers and Promoters versus N. Sai Prasad and others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 736 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para (11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 12, 13 and 14) which read as under. “11.1 As held by this Court in a catena of decisions right from 1977 that a mere clever drafting would not permit the plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. 11.2 In the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 , it is observed and held as under;- “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 Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. 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 Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif 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, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 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 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.” 10.3 In the case of Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364 , this Court has observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation. 12. If we consider the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession, cancellation of revocation of Gift Deed, declaration for DGPA and Deed of Assignment-cum-DGPA, the said reliefs can be granted only if the Compromise Decree dated 13.01.2016 passed in O.S. No.1750 of 2015 is set aside. Therefore, by asking such multiple reliefs, the plaintiff by clever drafting wants to get his suit maintainable, which otherwise would not be maintainable questioning the Compromise Decree. All the aforesaid reliefs were subject matter of earlier suits and thereafter also subject matter of O.S. No.1750 of 2015 in which the Compromise Decree has been passed. Therefore, it is rightly held by the Trial Court that the suit in the present form and for the reliefs sought would be barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC and therefore the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Therefore, it is rightly held by the Trial Court that the suit in the present form and for the reliefs sought would be barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC and therefore the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The High Court has erred in setting aside the said order by entering into the merits of the validity of the Compromise Decree on the ground that the same was hit by Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC, which was not permissible at this stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the only issue which was required to be considered by the High Court was whether the suit challenging the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not. 13. As observed hereinabove and it is not in dispute that as such the respondent No.1 – original plaintiff has already moved an appropriate application before the concerned Court, which passed the decree setting aside the compromise Decree by submitting an application under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC therefore the said application will have to be decided and disposed of in accordance with law in which all the defences / contentions which may have been available to the respective parties on the validity of the Compromise Decree would have to be gone into by the concerned court in accordance with law and on its own merits. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District passed on 02.05.2019 in I.A. No. 108 of 2019 in O.S. No.537 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Trial Court dated 02.05.2019 in I.A. No.108 of 2019 in O.S. No. 537 of 2018 rejecting the plaint is hereby restored. The order passed by the Trial Court dated 02.05.2019 in I.A. No.108 of 2019 in O.S. No. 537 of 2018 rejecting the plaint is hereby restored. However, it is observed that we have not expressed anything on merits on validity of the Compromise Decree and the same shall have to be decided and considered by the Court which passed the decree in an application under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, which as observed hereinabove has been filed by the original plaintiff and the said application be decided and disposed of by the concerned Court in accordance with law and on its own merits and the contentions/defences which may be available to the respective parties on the validity of the Compromise Decree are kept open to be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law and on its own merits” 18. Again, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Frost International Limited vs. Milan Developers and Builders Private Limited and another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 633 has held in para 34 which reads as under: “34. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the following judgments of this Court in respect with Order VII Rule 11 CPC: 34.1 In T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. – [ (1977) 4 SCC 467 ], this Court observed, in the following words, that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory: “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently 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 Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif 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, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. The learned Munsif 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, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC 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 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) 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.” 34.2 In Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi – [1986 Supp SCC 315], this Court discussed the very purpose of the power conferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by observing thus: “12. The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.” 34.3 In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others [ (2004) 3 SCC 137 ], it was held that Rule 11 of Order VII lays down an independent remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits. The law ostensibly does not contemplate any stage when the objections can be raised, and also does not say in express terms about the filing of a written statement. The law ostensibly does not contemplate any stage when the objections can be raised, and also does not say in express terms about the filing of a written statement. It was held that the word ‘shall’ is used to clearly imply that a duty is cast on the Court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of the defendant. Elaborating on the aspect of cause of action by quoting I.T.C Ltd. vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors. – [ (1998) 2 SCC 70 ], it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is whether a 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 VII Rule 11 of the Code. 34.4 This Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr. [ (2004) 9 SCC 512 ] held that a plaint must be construed as it stands without any amendments. The same is extracted herein as follows “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not, must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in its entirety, a decree would be passed.” 34.5 We could allude to the exposition of this Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal – [ (2017) 13 SCC 174 ], wherein it was held as under: “7. …..The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” 34.6. In Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and Others – [ (2020) 7 SCC 366 ], Indu Malhotra, J., while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had an occasion to consider various precedents discussing the intent and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC while setting out principles in relation to the same. It was held that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature and that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) is made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as below: “23.2 The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is an independent and special remedy wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceedings to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 23.3 The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. 23.4 In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court. 23.5 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 23.6 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 23.7 X X X X X 23.8 Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14, the documents filed with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 23.9 In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. 23.10 At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration.” 19. In the light of above legal position and factual matrix of the case, it is quite vivid that plaintiff has clearly claimed title, possession and declaration over the suit property. In the light of above legal position and factual matrix of the case, it is quite vivid that plaintiff has clearly claimed title, possession and declaration over the suit property. Whether the suit property is grassland or not it can be adjudicated after recording of the evidence only before the Trial Court, considering the above settled legal position and the plaint averment does not reflect that the suit is barred by any provision of law, therefore, considering parameters of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sree Surya Developers and Promoters and Frost International Limited (supra), I am of the view that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application warranting any interference by this Court. 20. Accordingly, the Revision Petition being devoid of the merit deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 21. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court on 02.03.2023 stands vacated. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.