ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of prayer to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order was passed on 27.8.2016 in Civil Suit No. 23/2014 brought by plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 3 against the petitioner and proforma respondents. The challenge was/is on the ground that the plaintiffs have no real cause of action, rather illusionary cause of action is stated in the plaint and the plaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/ respondents have brought the suit for specific performance of oral contract dated 30.4.1978 and the suit was filed on 2.11.2014. There is no acceptable explanation for such a delay. Moreover, it is frivolous to claim oral agreement to sale so old that many of the person present on the date of agreement already left the world. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents contend that the parties were so closely related having strong faith on each other that the transaction took place on oral assurance that in future when it would be required, a sale deed would be executed. 4. The legal position is well settled, in the matter of consideration of prayer under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, by a catena of decision. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) the LRs. & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 366 . In para 12 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “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, without proceeding 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. 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. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. 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, in the following words: “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.” 12.2 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. 12.3 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. 12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under : “Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.– (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”(emphasis supplied) Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith 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. 12.5 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. 12.6 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. 12.7 The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 512 which reads as : "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. 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 their entirety, a decree would be passed." In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. [ (2007) 5 SCC 614 ] the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact [(D.Ramachandran v. R.V.Janakiraman, { (1999) 3 SCC 267 }]. 12.8 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 12.9 The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [ (2003) 1 SCC 557 ]. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain. 12.10 The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are 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.” 5. Before considering the averment in the plaint, it would be apt to go through the relationship between the parties. 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.” 5. Before considering the averment in the plaint, it would be apt to go through the relationship between the parties. One Gurdayal Singh had two sons, Inderjeet Singh (plaintiff no. 1) and Late Gajaan Singh (who is represented by plaintiff no. 2 Balkaran Singh and plaintiff no. 3 Jaskaran Singh). Late Gurdayal Singh had a daughter Ajmer Kaur who was married to Hardayal Singh, Hardayal Singh had two sons Iqbal Singh (defendant no. 1 of the suit who is petitioner herein) and Late Gurcharan Singh. The legal heirs of Late Gurcharan Singh and Gajaan Singh are proforma respondents. 6. The case of the plaintiffs, as disclosed in the plaint, is that Hardayal Singh the husband of Ajmer Kaur had very good relationship with plaintiff no. 1 and his deceased brother. In Village- Dharam Singh Wala Ki Rohi, Chak No. 14, BNW, Pillar No. 5/134, Murabba No. 34, Khasra No. 1 to 23, area 5.313 acre, an agricultural land, was purchased in the year 1973-74 by Gurcharan Singh. The residential Village of the defendant is in Village Ajeetgilli Block Kotakpura, District Faridkot, Punjab. The defendants wanted to settle in their native Village at Punjab and they were also willing to purchase property in their native village after selling out the suit property. The plaintiffs were already settled in the Village where suit property was there as such agreed to purchase the suit property. Accordingly on 30.4.1978 oral agreement between the parties took place on total consideration money of Rs.95,000/-. 7. The aforesaid consideration money was paid to Iqbal Singh as well as Gurcharan Singh to the proportion of their respective share. As per oral agreement, the share of Gurcharan Singh was to be purchased by plaintiff Inderjeet Singh and share of Iqbal Singh was to be purchased by Gajaan Singh. Late Gajaan Singh was maintaining a personal diary as he was a literate person and in the said diary there is entry of the deal between the parties dated 30.4.1978 as well as receipt of consideration money by defendant Iqbal Singh which is in the writing of Iqbal Singh and signed by Iqbal Singh. Late Gajaan Singh was maintaining a personal diary as he was a literate person and in the said diary there is entry of the deal between the parties dated 30.4.1978 as well as receipt of consideration money by defendant Iqbal Singh which is in the writing of Iqbal Singh and signed by Iqbal Singh. On 28.5.1978, Hardayal Singh the father of Iqbal Singh had taken the consideration share of Gurcharan Singh. Since the parties were so intimate and incordial relationship that they did not take much care of getting the agreement reduced to writing. Soon after receipt of the consideration money, the defendants purchased immovable property in their Village which the plaintiff asserts to prove by production of their registered sale deed. The remaining consideration money was received by defendant lastly on 3.3.1985. The plaintiffs further asserted that when the market value of the land increased the defendant became greedy and started showing gesture of not complying with the agreement. On 13.4.2013, a Village Panchayat was convened but the defendant refused to accept the request of the Panchayat and started threatening for forceful dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit property. A proceeding before the Revenue Court started between the parties for temporary injunction, the prayer for injunction was refused on 20.4.2014. Then the plaintiffs were convinced that the defendants are not going to comply with the agreement to sale. Consequently, the suit was filed on 2.11.2014. 8. On a careful consideration of the averments in the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and the suit is result of clever drafting of the plaint disclosing a case of illusionary cause of action. Since, no time limit was fixed for the performance of the contract, the suit was filed when the plaintiffs had notice of non compliance of the agreement as such the suit was well within time under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. 9. An oral agreement to sale of immovable property is not barred under the law, rather hard to prove which would be subject matter of the trial. The relationship between the parties and their intimacy goes to show that there was reason to go by oral agreement to sale. 9. An oral agreement to sale of immovable property is not barred under the law, rather hard to prove which would be subject matter of the trial. The relationship between the parties and their intimacy goes to show that there was reason to go by oral agreement to sale. Just to respect the relationship between the parties as well as to dispel any chances of subject on the trustworthiness of the defendant, the parties might have agreed to go by oral agreement. Other attending circumstances pleaded in the plaint that in pursuance of oral agreement, consideration money was received by defendant Iqbal Singh on his behalf as well as on behalf of Gurcharan Singh, which is maintained in the routine diary of Late Gajaan Singh. Coupled with the fact that soon after receipt of consideration money, defendants purchased immovable property in their native village in Punjab goes to show that the suit was not having an imaginary cause of action or having no leg to stand in the trial, therefore, this is not a case wherein a fair dispute should not be allowed to be adjudicated. 10. The petitioner has further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 14807/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that a plaint can be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, if it is evident from the statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by any law including limitation. As noticed above, in the case on hand, the plaint was not barred by limitation as no time limit was fixed for performance of the contract and the plaintiff has stated the date of accrual of cause of action. The suit was within time under Section 54 of the Limitation Act from the date of notice of refusal to perform. 11. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the Civil Revision stands dismissed as devoid of any merit.