JUDGMENT : (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.) This miscellaneous second appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 challenging the order passed in R.A.No.15105/2019 dated 16.12.2019, by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Devanahalli, (hereinafter referred as 'the First Appellate Court'), which reversed the order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.812/2016 dated 04.11.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli, thereby, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs is rejected and is set aside by the First Appellate Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court. 2. Rank of the parties as stated before the Trial Court for easy reference and convenience. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, to declare that the registered gift deed dated 22.04.2016 executed by defendant No.1, in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also sought for consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.2 and 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties. 4. The defendants have appeared before the trial Court and filed written statement denying the case of plaintiff on various aspects and also stated that the suit is not maintainable for not asking appropriate relief. 5. In the suit, the defendants have filed an interlocutory application No.6, under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC for seeking rejection of the plaint. It is the ground urged in the said application that, the plaintiff has only asked prayer for a declaration to declare that, the registered gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has not asked for the relief of partition and possession of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, on this ground, prays to reject the plaint. 6. The trial Court has rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not asked for partition and possession of suit schedule properties and also, by assigning the reason that as per Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the plaint is rejected. 7. This order of rejection of plaint is challenged in the regular appeal and the First Appellate Court has set-aside the said order and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 8. The said order is under challenge in this second appeal. 9. 7. This order of rejection of plaint is challenged in the regular appeal and the First Appellate Court has set-aside the said order and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 8. The said order is under challenge in this second appeal. 9. Where a provision of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is invoked for seeking rejection of the plaint, then the defendants have to demonstrate, as to under which provision of law the suit is barred by law. But, in the present case, the defendants have not demonstrated under which provision of law, the suit is expressly or impliedly barred by law. But the only ground urged by the defendants is that, the plaintiff has not asked main relief but asked only ancillary relief. The plaintiff might have omitted to ask for relief or the relief asked in the suit may be defective, but that cannot be a ground to state that the suit is barred by law. The defects as per defendants are omission to make proper prayer is to be considered during the adjudication of the suit. But that does not amount to say that the suit is barred by law. 10. Therefore, while filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, the defendants have to demonstrate how the suit is barred by law expressly or impliedly, then only the plaint could be rejected, otherwise not. Therefore, in the present case, the order passed by the First Appellate Court is perfectly justifiable and correct one. 11. It is another ground urged by the defendants that the plaintiff has cleverly drafted the plaint trying to make a cause of action. The Trial Court has discussed on this aspect as per Order II Rule 2 of CPC, but it is not contended by the defendants. The Trial Court has misconceived the application filed under Order II Rule 2 of CPC and assigned reasons that at this stage how Order II Rule 2 is applicable so as to reject the plaint is not demonstrated by the defendants. What the defendants are contending that there is no cause of action to file the suit, but the defendants have failed to prove that the cause of action is illusory or there is no cause of action. What the defendants are contending that there is no cause of action to file the suit, but the defendants have failed to prove that the cause of action is illusory or there is no cause of action. The Trial Court itself misconceived Order II Rule 2 of CPC while considering the interlocutory application No.6 seeking rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. It is not the case that the defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) also, but the application filed by the defendants is only by invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The Trial Court assumed itself that there is no cause of action as per Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Even if the Trial Court got impression in its mind that the involvement of Order II Rule 2 of CPC but that could be considered during the trial, but not at the stage of while rejecting the plaint. While considering the application filed for rejection of plaint, it must be considered with utmost caution for the reason that it is to scuttle down the suit at the initial stage itself. Therefore, the Trial Court shall be little bit slow while rejecting the plaint. Where the defendants make out ground for the rejection of plaint in all four corners of law, then only the plaint can be rejected otherwise not. The Trial Court shall sparingly exercise its power while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. But, in the present case, when it is nobody’s case that invoking Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the Trial Court assumed itself regarding cause of action, and the plaint is rejected. The aspect of Order II Rule 2 of CPC could be considered only during the adjudication of trial. It is not the provision to reject the plaint. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error and the First Appellate Court has correctly set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court for trial. Hence, the first appellate Court is correct in passing the order and remanding the case to the Trial Court. 12. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error and the First Appellate Court has correctly set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court for trial. Hence, the first appellate Court is correct in passing the order and remanding the case to the Trial Court. 12. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has observed that mere defects in asking relief in the suit that does not amount to state that, the suit is barred by law, so as to invoke the Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed error and that is rectified by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the order passed by the First Appellate Court is notably correct and is justifiable under law. Hence, the appeal filed by the defendants is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with I.A.No.1/2020.