JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff who is aggrieved by the Order dated 17.12.2022 passed in O.S.No.639/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a)to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. The learned Judge has entertained the said application and rejected the plaint which is now assailed before this Court. 3. For the sake of brevity, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and, consequently, prays for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his associates from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant, in collusion with certain revenue officials, has fabricated documents, including a purported Sale Deed dated 06.07.2021. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant has concocted a false Partition Deed dated 01.04.1989, falsely claiming that the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather. 5. On receipt of summons, defendant tendered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. The learned Judge has entertained the application and rejected the plaint, which is now under challenge. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the plaint without properly examining whether the defendant had made out any of the grounds contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure . He contended that the learned Judge, instead of restricting the inquiry to the averments in the plaint, has relied upon the assertions made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11, and on that basis, has proceeded to reject the plaint. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is perverse and warrants interference by this Court. 8. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is perverse and warrants interference by this Court. 8. Per contra, Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant, supported the impugned order and submitted that the rejection of the plaint was fully justified. He pointed out that the plaintiff himself has admitted in the plaint that the partition allegedly took place nearly 100 years ago and, in the absence of a clear and specific pleading with regard to the cause of action, the learned Judge was right in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. He placed strong reliance on paragraph 5 of the plaint to contend that no cause of action is disclosed, and therefore, urged this Court not to grant any indulgence to the appellant. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/defendant, and upon perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, this Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In light of the same, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the impugned Order rejecting the plaint invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure suffers from perversity and warrants interference? (ii) What Order? 10. FINDING ON POINT NO.(i): Before adverting to the reasons assigned by the learned Judge, this Court deems fit to cull out paragraphs 3 to 6 of the plaint which reads as under: "(3) It is submitted that the land pertains to land bearing Sy.No.109/2 to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntasland is Thimmasandra village, KasabaHobli, situated Doddaballapura Taluk, is the property of the plaintiff herein. (4) It is submitted that originally the suit schedule property belongs to one Doddapapaiah, S/o Chikkamuniga, who is grandfather of the plaintiff herein. The said property is the Inamti land property and he is the absolute owner of the property mentioned above and he is in physical possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by growing seasonal crops along with his family members and he died long back. The said property is the Inamti land property and he is the absolute owner of the property mentioned above and he is in physical possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by growing seasonal crops along with his family members and he died long back. (5) It is submitted that, it is important to brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court, the plaintiff further submit that, on the basis of the grant the name of the grand father of the plaintiff name was entered in the revenue records to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas as per grant, but defendant colluding with revenue officials are creating fake documents and created a fake sale deed in favour of the defendant vide document No.31/1921-22 dated 06.07.2021. A copy of the sale deed is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (6) It is further submit that, also created a fake partition deed of joint family members dated 01.04.1989 in respect of the suit schedule property.” 11. This Court also deems it fit to refer to the averments made in the affidavit filed by respondent/defendant in support of I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure . “(4) I state that, in paragraph No.5 of the plaintiff it is further stated that this defendant as created fake sale deed vide document No.31/1921-22 dated 06.07.2021. This document is not produced by the plaintiff. (5) I state that at the paragraph no.6 plaintiff stated that a fake partition deed was created by the join family members dated 01.04.1989, the said document is not questioned by the plaintiff. (6) I state that, plaintiff is a totally stranger to the suit schedule property. (7) I state that, as per the document furnish by the plaintiff i.e. grnats order in HOA Talavri CR 7/1979-80 the re-grant was made in favour of father of this defendant namely Chithappa, S/o Papaiah. (8) I state that, by virtue of this re-grant order the katha of the suit property was transferred in the name of this defendant vide MR No.17/1994-95. (9) I state that, this defendant is in exclusive in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. (8) I state that, by virtue of this re-grant order the katha of the suit property was transferred in the name of this defendant vide MR No.17/1994-95. (9) I state that, this defendant is in exclusive in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. (10) I state that, upon the meaning full reading of the plaint it doesn’t show cause of action and also right to sue for the plaintiff to claim owner ship of the suit schedule property.” 12. On a conjoint reading of the relevant paragraphs of the plaint along with the averments contained in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure , this Court is of the considered view that the defendant has failed to establish any of the grounds that would warrant rejection of the plaint under the said provision. A deeper scrutiny of the averments made in the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has indeed disclosed a cause of action, and the reliefs sought therein cannot be said to be barred by any law, including limitation, at this stage. 13. Rather than confining itself to the limited scope of inquiry permissible under Order VII Rule 11, the learned Trial Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred under the said provision and has, in effect, conducted a mini- trial. By referring extensively to various documents produced by the plaintiff, including entries in the revenue records such as the RTC and mutation register, the learned Judge has drawn conclusions on disputed questions of fact. This approach, in the opinion of this Court, is wholly impermissible while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, which mandates the Court to restrict its examination to the averments in the plaint and not to the veracity of any document or defense. 14. The learned Trial Judge, without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to substantiate his claim through a full-fledged trial, has summarily dismissed the suit by a cryptic and unsustainable order. The rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation was never specifically pressed by the defendant. Nevertheless, the learned Judge, on the basis of some entries in the revenue records, concluded that the cause of action arose in the year 1995, and therefore, the suit filed in 2022 is barred by limitation. The rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation was never specifically pressed by the defendant. Nevertheless, the learned Judge, on the basis of some entries in the revenue records, concluded that the cause of action arose in the year 1995, and therefore, the suit filed in 2022 is barred by limitation. This conclusion, rendered without proper pleadings or framing of issues, amounts to a premature adjudication of disputed facts, which ought to have been examined only during trial. 15. It is well settled that objections relating to the absence of cause of action must be examined in a liberal and purposive manner. A meaningful reading of the plaint, particularly paragraph 5, reveals that the plaintiff has referred to a historical transaction dating back to 1921 as part of the background narrative, but the cause of action is clearly pleaded to have arisen on 29.07.2022. The suit itself having been filed in the same year, the question of limitation does not arise at this preliminary stage. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have adopted a liberal approach, especially when the dispute pertains to immovable property and proprietary rights. 16. Though the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the CPC, there is a conspicuous absence of specific pleadings or supporting material in the affidavit to show that the suit is barred by any law. Notwithstanding this, the learned Judge, without referring to the legal requisites under Order VII Rule 11(d), has proceeded to reject the plaint primarily on the ground of limitation, an aspect neither substantiated by the defendant nor justified in law at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11. 17. While clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is mandatory in nature and requires the Court to reject a plaint that fails to disclose a cause of action, it is equally well settled that there exists a fundamental distinction between a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action and one where the cause of action is merely weak or ultimately untenable. The learned Trial Judge, unfortunately, has failed to appreciate this distinction and has erroneously equated the alleged absence of cause of action with the inadequacy of the pleadings, which is not the standard under Order VII Rule 11. 18. The learned Trial Judge, unfortunately, has failed to appreciate this distinction and has erroneously equated the alleged absence of cause of action with the inadequacy of the pleadings, which is not the standard under Order VII Rule 11. 18. In the present case, the plaint, read as a whole, does not indicate that the plaintiff had absolutely no cause of action as on the date of institution of the suit. On the contrary, the pleadings disclose a triable issue, and the suit seeks comprehensive reliefs of declaration and injunction based on rights claimed over immovable property. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot be non-suited at the threshold stage merely on the ground that his claims are contentious or arguable. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in rejecting the plaint at the inception without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to prove his case through evidence. The very nature of the suit, which involves assertion of rights over immovable property, necessitates a full-fledged trial. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11 contains only vague and general averments, which do not satisfy the stringent requirements of the said provision for rejection of the plaint. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is unsustainable in law and on facts, and the same is liable to be set aside. Consequently, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative, holding that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at the threshold. 21. FINDING ON POINT No.(ii): In view of the finding of the this court on point No.(i) as above, the following: ORDER : (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 17.12.202 passed in O.S.No.639/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura is hereby set aside. (iii) Suit is restored on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura. Matter is remitted to the Trial Court. (iv) The parties are relegated to substantiate their respective claim by leading their respective oral and documentary evidence. (v) Defendant is permitted to file the written statement within a period of sixty days from today. (vi) All contentions are kept open. Matter is remitted to the Trial Court. (iv) The parties are relegated to substantiate their respective claim by leading their respective oral and documentary evidence. (v) Defendant is permitted to file the written statement within a period of sixty days from today. (vi) All contentions are kept open. (vii) Since the parties are represented by their counsel’s, they are hereby directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.07.2025 without further notice.