JUDGMENT : This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.4909/2018 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing I.A.No.2 filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. rejecting the suit. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of partition before the Trial Court to grant judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff 1/3rd share each in all the properties i.e., item Nos.1 to 3 and also sought for mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 18 and further sought to declare that gift deed dated 28.02.2002 is not binding on the plaintiff. 4. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. contending that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and she has absolutely no right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties and she prayed for decree of partition and separate possession and declare that gift deed dated 28.02.2002 is not binding on her. It is contended that, as per the plaint averments, the schedule properties are self-acquired properties of deceased K. Ashwathama but, none of the properties are available for partition. It is also contended that deceased K. Ashwathama had alienated all the properties standing in his name. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and there is no cause of action to file the suit. It is contended that item No.3 of the suit schedule properties is self-acquired property of defendant No.2. He has purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 03.01.1991 and hence, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is also contended that on 29.01.2007 itself, he had sold the item No.2 property in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and item Nos.1 and 2 are self acquired properties of deceased K. Ashwathama and during his life time, he sold the said properties and he gifted the item No.1 of the property in favour of his wife i.e., defendant No.1. 5. 5. The plaintiff has filed the objection statement contending that, in order to avoid definite share in the suit schedule properties, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have colluded with each other and created several documents. Even though the defendants are aware of the fact that the plaintiff is the daughter and her mother is the only legally wedded wife of deceased K. Ashwathama, they illegally withdrawn the deposit amount in the name of deceased K. Ashwathama. The plaintiff is entitled for her legitimate share in all the movable and immovable properties and deposits belonging to the deceased K. Ashwathama and the defendants have denied the relationship of plaintiff with deceased K. Ashwathama. It is also contended that, in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties, the deceased K. Ashwathama and his two sons had sold the said property in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and the deceased K. Ashwathama had no exclusive right to deal with the share of plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the application requires to be dismissed. 6. The Trial Court, having considered the pleadings of the defendants as well as the plaintiff, formulated the point whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that the plaint presented by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. 7. Having considered the grounds urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the Trial Court having considered the same in Para No.11 discussed in detail with regard to the averments made in the plaint and the relief sought in the plaint and also with regard to the relationship what she has urged in the plaint. Having considered the contention of the plaintiff that she is the only daughter of deceased K. Ashwathama and the deceased K. Ashwathama had no right to alienate the right of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds to reject the plaint and the same has to be decided after full-fledged trial. Hence, rejected the application filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 8. Hence, rejected the application filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the plaintiff herself pleaded that, item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are purchased by the father and he had already sold item No.2 of the property during his life time to defendant Nos.5 and 6 and no property is available for partition and item No.1 is gifted in favour of his wife during his life time and it is the specific contention in the plaint that the same is purchased by deceased K. Ashwathama and when the properties are self-acquired properties of the deceased K. Ashwathama and he had disposed of the properties, the question of partition does not arise. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the suit. In respect of item No.3 also, it is stated that the said property belongs to defendant No.2 and the same is purchased by him in the year 1991 and the plaint averments does not disclose anything about the fact that the properties belongs to the joint family. When such being the case, the very averments of the plaint itself disclose that she is not having any right. Hence, granting of any share to the plaintiff does not arise. It is also contended that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are not available for partition and also it is not her case that gift deed executed has to be declared as null and void and relief is sought only to declare that the gift deed dated 28.02.2002 is not binding on her. Hence, she is not entitled for any relief, unless she files a better proceeding questioning the sale deed and gift deed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/S. DURGA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., VS. Hence, she is not entitled for any relief, unless she files a better proceeding questioning the sale deed and gift deed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/S. DURGA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., VS. SRI S. RAJAGOPALA REDDY AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2019 KAR 4739, wherein this Court has held that clear drafting of plaint and suppression of material facts is a ground for rejection of plaint and the plaintiff is duty bound in law to disclose the material facts in terms of Order 6, Rule 2, omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and in such a case, plaint becomes bad. 10. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS VS. HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS reported in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5819-5822 OF 2021 dated 21.09.2021 and relied upon Para No.21 of the judgment, wherein the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that we are in agreement with the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which, upon an elaborate scrutiny of the averments made in the plaint, the reliefs claims therein, the provisions of the said Act and the clauses of the Partnership deed, came to the conclusion that the reliefs as sought in the plaint, cannot be grantedm In para No.20 of the judgment, the Apex Court has discussed with regard to adhering to provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It is also held that, in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 11. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in DAHIBEN VS. It is also held that, in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 11. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in DAHIBEN VS. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.7, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to Order 7, Rule 14 of C.P.C. which provides for production of document and even considering the proviso also, the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII 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. 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. The test for exercising the power under Order 7, Rule 11 is that if the averments in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. The counsel referring this judgment also brought to notice of this Court Para No.24.4, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and is an abuse of the process of the Court. 12. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RAMISETTY VENKATANNA AND ANOTHER VS. NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB AND OTHERS reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 521 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.28, wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with Order VII, Rule XI made an observation that the plaint ought to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of Court and the law. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the main contention of the petitioners is that property belongs to deceased K. Ashwathama and it is also not in dispute that properties are the self-acquired properties of deceased K. Ashwathama. The counsel would vehemently contend that item No.2 was already sold in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and there is no averment with regard to selling of property and the plaintiff has also not questioned the sale of item No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that item No.1 of the property was gifted in favour of his wife during his life time and nothing is there to decide before the Trial Court. In respect of item No.3 is concerned, it is the contention of the defendants that the property is purchased by the defendant No.2 in the year 1991 and the sale deed is also produced before the Court. 15. While exercising the powers under Section Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., the Court has to look into only the averments of the plaint and not the defence and the very contention of the defendant No.2 is that item No.3 is purchased in the name of the defendant No.2. Having considered the averments made in the plaint in Para No.2, the plaintiff has narrated with regard to the relationship between said K. Ashwathama contending that he is her father and mother is Smt. Kanta and their marriage was solemnized in the year 1954 and the defendants are disputing the said fact. In Para No.5 of the plaint, it is stated with regard to the relationship between deceased K. Ashwathama and Kanta and plaintiff was born and they resided together. In Para No.5 of the plaint, it is stated with regard to the relationship between deceased K. Ashwathama and Kanta and plaintiff was born and they resided together. In Para No.6, it is pleaded with regard to the fact that said K. Ashwathama had purchased the property i.e., item No.1 of the property and in respect of item No.2, it is stated that he had purchased the said property and has also produced the document of sale deed i.e., document Nos.5 and 6. Hence, on perusal of these averments, it is clear that those two properties are purchased by deceased K. Ashwathama and no averment in the plaint with regard to item No.3 of the suit schedule properties but, item No.3 is included in the plaint. However, it is pleaded in the plaint the gift deed is not binding on her. 16. It is also important to note that, nowhere in the plaint, it is pleaded with regard to the sale of property by the plaintiff i.e., item No.2 and the only averment made in the plaint is that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not allowed deceased K. Ashwathama to meet plaintiff and they have got created certain documents knowing very well that plaintiff is having right over the suit schedule properties. It appears that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have taken undue advantage of the old age of late K. Ashwathama. The plaintiff is not having any information and therefore, she has complained to the jurisdictional police to trace the whereabouts of K. Ashwathama. Later, the plaintiff has filed Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court in W.P.No.158/2013 and at that stage, it was informed that K. Ashwathama was no more. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 have deliberately not informed the death of K. Ashwathama to the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have prevailed upon late K. Ashwathama to execute document in their favour. When specific allegation is made in the plaint with regard to the creation of the documents and the plaintiff was not having knowledge about sale of the property in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 as contended in the written statement and also in the application, the question of granting any relief in respect of sale of property in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 is not binding on the plaintiff does not arise as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 17. No doubt, the plaintiff has sought for the relief to declare that the gift deed is not binding in her, when specific averment is made in the plaint with regard to creation of the document and also when she has pleaded that deceased K. Ashwathama was not found and a Habeas Corpus Petition was filed before this Court and then she came to know that he is no more and specific allegation is made that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have deliberately not informed the death of deceased K. Ashwathama to the plaintiff and indulged in creation of document and when such averment is made and also with regard to cause of action, in Para No.18 of the plaint, it is stated that she has issued legal notice claiming share and also when the defendants have given evasive reply to the notice and denied to give the plaintiff’s legitimate share in all the suit schedule properties, she has filed the suit. 18. When such being the material on record, the Court has to look into the averments of the plaint and whether the plaintiff has got right or not and whether those documents came into existence as alleged in Para No.9 of the suit has to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. With regard to the relationship between the parties, the same is a disputed question of fact and the same has to be considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, while considering the grounds urged in the application, taken note of the disputed question of facts between the parties with regard to the relationship between the plaintiff with the deceased K. Ashwathama. The Trial Court also, in Para No.11 in detail discussed the same and comes to the conclusion that matter requires to be tried and it requires full-fledged trial. When specific allegation is made in the plaint, the Court has to look into the averments of the plaint and the defence is immaterial while considering the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon several judgment a in support of his argument. When specific allegation is made in the plaint, the Court has to look into the averments of the plaint and the defence is immaterial while considering the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon several judgment a in support of his argument. However, in the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2019 KAR 4739, it is held with regard to clear drafting of plaint and suppression of material facts is a ground for rejection of plaint and plaintiff is duty bound in law to disclose the material facts in terms of Order 6, Rule 2, omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and in such a case, plaint becomes bad. In the case on hand, nothing is suppressed with regard to the claim made by the plaintiff and she has specifically stated that the suit schedule properties are purchased by her father decased K. Ashwathama and it is the claim of the defendants that both the properties are disposed of. When the plaintiff has made the allegation in the plaint itself with regard to the creation of the documents, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. No doubt, the counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 521 with regard to clever drafting of the plaint to avoid limitation and got filed the suit, the Court has to look into the facts and circumstances of each case. 20. Further, in the judgment reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 , the Apex Court has discussed with regard to Order 7, Rule 14 of C.P.C. as well as Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Court has to look into the documents available on record. In the case on hand, it is the specific pleading of the plaintiff that the properties are is purchased by her father and the same has been stated in the plaint and document is also produced. However, she has contended in the plaint that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have indulged in creation of documents and also contended that, even the death of deceased K. Ashwathama was not informed to her and only on filing the Habeas Corpus petition, she came to know that her father is no more. However, she has contended in the plaint that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have indulged in creation of documents and also contended that, even the death of deceased K. Ashwathama was not informed to her and only on filing the Habeas Corpus petition, she came to know that her father is no more. When such allegation is made in the plaint, the same requires to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) as ‘negative’. Point No.(ii) 21. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The revision petition is dismissed. (ii) However, the Trial Court shall not be influenced with the observations made hereinabove by this Court while considering the matter on merits.