ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the Additional District Court, Thodupuzha (for short, 'the trial court') in IA No.5/2022 in OS No.1/2022 dismissing an application seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, C.P.C.). 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff is the registered owner and user of the trademark MISTY MOUNTAIN in relation to the services of providing food, drinks and temporary accommodation and consequential permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from using the said trademark or passing off their services under the said trademark. The plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on the business of running hotels and resorts in Idukki, Kerala. The defendant also is a partnership firm engaged in the same business in Munnar, Idukki. The case of the plaintiff is that its predecessor adopted the trademark MISTY MOUNTAIN in 1999 and deployed in trade in relation to “Misty Mountain Plantation Resort”, which commenced operation on 18.1.1999 and has been in constant and uninterrupted use of the said trademark since then. While so, its predecessor secured registration for the trademark on 6.12.2019. Subsequently, the trademark was assigned to the plaintiff on 13.9.2019. It is alleged that the defendant has adopted a deceptively similar trademark as that of the plaintiff in respect of the same services of the plaintiff and, therefore, infringing its registered trademark besides passing of its (defendant’s) services offered under the mark as and that of the plaintiff’s services. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. The defendant also filed a separate application as IA No.5/2022 to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. The trial court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application vide order dated 13.2.2024. It is challenging the said order; this Revision Petition has been filed. 3. I have heard Sri. Philip T. Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. enumerates the grounds for rejection of a plaint and declares that the plaint shall be rejected on those grounds. It is challenging the said order; this Revision Petition has been filed. 3. I have heard Sri. Philip T. Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. enumerates the grounds for rejection of a plaint and declares that the plaint shall be rejected on those grounds. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. Rule 11 (a) gives one of the instances of the rejection of the plaint in case of non-disclosure of cause of action. It only says that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. It does not say that the plaint shall be rejected where the plaintiff has no cause of action to sue. There is a distinction between the non-existence of a cause of action and the non-disclosure of the cause of action. Only the latter one falls under Order VII Rule 11. For the limited purpose of determining the question whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for no-disclosure of the cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a), the averment in the plaint alone is material or relevant and nothing else (State of Orissa v. Klockner and Company and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2140 ). The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 was laid down by the Supreme Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another [ (2004) 9 SCC 512 ]. Paragraph 139 of the judgment reads thus : “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 plant itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. Paragraph 139 of the judgment reads thus : “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 plant 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 their entirety, a decree would be passed.” Whether the cause of action shown in the plaint is correct or not is not a consideration while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The issues on the merit of the controversy which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. [Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. v. Ashok Vidyarthi, 2023 KLT OnLine 2038 (SC) : 2023 INSC 1043 ]. 5. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended the plaintiff does not hold any registration for the mark MISTY MOUNTAIN in class 43; hence, the question of infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark does not arise at all. It is further contended that the defendant has adopted and started using the trademark ‘MOUNTAIN MIST & Device’ since 2009 for its business and filed trade mark application with a view to obtain statutory protection for its mark on 20.5.2010, the Trade Mark Registry after duly examining the application allowed to proceed to advertisement and the defendant proceeded to registration. Thereafter, the plaintiff initiated rectification proceedings for the defendant’s trade mark. The defendant challenged the rectification proceedings before the Trademark Registry, Chennai in a review petition filed by it on 2.2.2022. It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff concealed and suppressed in the plaint the fact that there are ongoing proceedings in the form of a review petition filed by it emanating from the rectification proceedings filed by the plaintiff in respect of the same subject matter before the Trademark Registry, Chennai. According to the defendant, as the registered trademark of the plaintiff is in the status of review, the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the suit. 6. According to the defendant, as the registered trademark of the plaintiff is in the status of review, the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the suit. 6. Cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an 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. [Swamy Atmananda and Others v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others (2005) 10 SCC 51 ]. As already stated, the suit is one for infringement of the plaintiff's trademark by the defendant. In the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor, owner and prior user of the trademark MISTY MOUNTAIN, the defendant has been dishonestly using the trade mark which is identical to that of the plaintiff's registered trade mark and trade name and thus the defendant has infringed the plaintiff’s rights in registered trade mark. That pleading itself is sufficient to constitute a cause of action for filing the suit for the reliefs sought. Whether that is correct or not is something to be decided at the time of trial. 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. [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others (2004) 3 SCC 137 ]. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(a). [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others (2004) 3 SCC 137 ]. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(a). The grounds canvassed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint are outside the purview of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives and Others [ (2020) 7 SCC 366 ], the Supreme Court has cautioned that since the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. For the aforementioned reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.