OR ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. The defendants in the suit filed the above revision petition against the order dated 28.12.2024 in I.A.No.800 of 2022 in O.S.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. For brevity, the parties to the judgment are referred to as the plaintiff and defendants. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2020 against the defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23.06.2016. The 1 st defendant filed a written statement. Pending the suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.800 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint. The I.A. was dismissed on 28.12.2024. 4. Since the defendants filed I.A. under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, let this Court examine the relevant pleadings in the plaint. - 5. The I.A. was dismissed on 28.12.2024. 4. Since the defendants filed I.A. under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, let this Court examine the relevant pleadings in the plaint. - 5. In the plaint, it was contended inter-alia, that the defendants offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff in 2016; that in the negotiations, the rate was fixed @ Rs.10,00,000/- per cent; that on 23.06.2016, the defendants jointly executed an agreement of sale, after receiving Rs.20,00,000/- as advance sale consideration; that the suit property along with remaining extent was given on lease to Bharat Petroleum Corporation by the grand-father of defendants by name Bharatam Adinarayana; that the plaintiff has been running petroleum business in the said property as an authorized dealer; that the lease period was ended in 2017; that the other shares in the property already sold to the plaintiff and hence, the defendants agreed to sell their share; that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute the sale deed as agreed, after receiving the balance amount, by expressing his readiness and willingness and further informed the defendants that the suit schedule property is under his possession and if they execute sale deed, he will continue; that the defendants informed and assured that they will execute registered sale deed in terms of agreement sale deed after lapse of lease period only, till then they will not execute sale deed, in violation of terms of agreement while admitting their liability; that the plaintiff repeatedly demanded the defendants; that the plaintiff came to know in the 2 nd week of December, 2019 that the defendants with a malafied intention to get unlawful gain, by suppressing the suit agreement of sale, making efforts to alienate the property to third parties and hence, the suit was filed seeking specific performance. 6. As noted supra, the defendants filed I.A., to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, inter-alia, that as per the conditions recited in the agreement of sale that the execution of the registered sale deed is after expiry of the lease period and delivery of the property, and upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, inter-alia, that as per the conditions recited in the agreement of sale that the execution of the registered sale deed is after expiry of the lease period and delivery of the property, and upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. However, in the plaint, the plaintiff created an unreal, illusory and untrue cause of action and filed the suit. The discrepancy in the pleadings vis-à-vis expiry of the lease period and the payment made by the plaintiff, while continuing with the possession of the property, violates the terms of the agreement. The pleadings are vague. No notice was issued before the filing of the suit. The pleadings in the plaint did not explain the alleged plea of the property of BPCL. The plaintiff pleaded possession; however, sought relief, delivery of possession and alternative relief of refund and thus, prayed to reject the plaint, as it is vexatious and frivolous. Limitation is also pleaded as one of the grounds to reject the plaint. - 7. A counter affidavit was filed by the plaintiff and opposed the application. The Trial Court, by order dated 28.12.2024, dismissed the application. 8. Heard Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Sai Locahn, learned counsel representing Sri Bindu Vegiraju, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the scope of Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC and the recital in the agreement of sale. She would also submit that as per the recital in the agreement of sale, after expiry of the lease with BPCL and upon re-delivery of the property, the land owners, in turn, will execute the sale deed. However, the clause in the agreement that gives a cause of action to file the suit was not properly considered by the Trial Court. She would also submit that the suit is barred by limitation, since the agreement of sale is dated 23.06.2016 and the suit was filed by the plaintiff in 2020. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the lease was ended in 2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded that the defendants execute a registered sale deed after receiving the balance of the sale consideration. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the lease was ended in 2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded that the defendants execute a registered sale deed after receiving the balance of the sale consideration. The defendants, having assured to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement, after expiry of the lease period, however, failed to execute the sale deed. The defendants are making efforts to alienate the property, and the same came to the notice of the plaintiff in the 2 nd week of December 2019. - Thereafter, immediately, the plaintiff filed the suit. 11. The point for consideration is: “Whether the order dated 28.12.2024 in I.A.No.800 of 2022 in O.S.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam suffers from any illegality?” 12. Before proceeding further, let this Court examine what constitutes a "cause of action? and the definition, if any. The experience of this court and judicial precedents, several interlocutory applications are being filed seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint doesn?t indicate a cause of action. Most of the interlocutory applications are being dismissed, resulting in the filing of Civil Revision Petitions before this court. Since the issue is being agitated time and again, this court is making some effort to find out jurisprudential precedents on the aspect of the "cause of action?. 13. The phrase cause of action has not been defined in CPC, 1908 or in any procedural Acts. It has a different meaning in different contexts. Generally, the cause of action is described as a bundle of facts, which the plaintiff proved or demanded and was entitled to the relief prayed for. 14. As per the Black?s law dictionary the expression “cause of action” is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person 15. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, a “cause of action” is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. - 16. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, a “cause of action” is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. - 16. In Halsbury’s Laws of England , the cause of action has been defined as follows: “Cause of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. Cause of action' has also been taken to mean that a particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject-matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action." 17. In Mohammed Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Main , [ AIR 1949 PC 78 ] , the Privy Council considered what constitutes a cause of action, referring to the decision of the Queen's Bench: “61. ….. (2) The cause of action means every fact which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment. (Read v. Brown [(1888) 22 QBD 128 : 58 LJQB 120 : 60 LT250 (CA)] ) (3) If the evidence to support the two claims is different, then the causes of action are also different. (Brunsden v. Humphrey [(1884) 14 QBD 141 : (1881-85) All ER Rep 357 : 53 LJQB 476 : 51 LT 529 (CA)] ) (4) …. (5) The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence that may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.” - 18. The expression “cause of action” has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances, which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts, which a plaintiff must prove in order to succeed. The expression “cause of action” has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances, which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts, which a plaintiff must prove in order to succeed. These are all those essential facts without the proof of which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. (Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh , (1977) 1 SCC 791 ) 19. In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. A.P. Agencies , [ 1989 (2) SCC 163 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in 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. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.” 20. By “cause of action” it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, a bundle of facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. (Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai , [ (1994) 6 SCC 322 ] ). 21. In other words, a bundle of facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. (Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai , [ (1994) 6 SCC 322 ] ). 21. It is settled law that “cause of action” consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim 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 would possibly accrue or would arise. (South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd , [[ (1996) 3 SCC 443 ] ). 22. In a generic and wide sense “cause of action” means every fact, which it is necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment. (Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar , [ (1998) 6 SCC 514 ] ). 23. The expression “cause of action” has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense “cause of action” means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as noted above, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in “cause of action”. (Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India , [ (2001) 2 SCC 294 ] ). - 24. Thus, a conspectus of the above authorities, for more than a century, a cause of action is a bundle of facts, and the plaintiff must prove to support his/her case to a judgment. In the wider sense, a cause of action means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the breach of the right, but also the violation coupled with the right itself. In the wider sense, a cause of action means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the breach of the right, but also the violation coupled with the right itself. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action?. A solitary incident or fact may not be termed a cause of action. The reciprocal obligations and other incidental issues will also constitute a cause of action. The cause of action has no relation vis-à-vis the defence set up by the defendant. 25. In the case at hand, the plaintiff in the plaint, in the cause of action para, pleaded as follows: “The cause of action for the suit arose on 23-06-2016 (Twenty third day of June two thousand sixteen) when the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property and executed the agreement of sale and subsequently when the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute sale deed and the defendants while admitting heir liability and assured to execute registered sale deed after lapse of lease period while so in the 2 nd week of December 2019 when the plaintiff came to know about the illegal acts of them and on question of plaintiff the defendants kept quiet and at Srikakulam town, mandal and district where the suit schedule property situated within the jurisdiction of the Honourable court. The suit is in time as the stipulation of contract is arises after completion of lease period of Bharat Petroleum corporation.” 26. Thus, a perusal of the plaint and the paragraph extracted supra would manifest several facts pleaded in the plaint that give rise to the institution of the suit. A solitary incident, pleaded by the learned counsel for the defendant, the recital in the agreement, is only one among the others. - 27. No doubt, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agreement of sale, being the suit document, forms part of the pleadings, cannot be disregarded. Order VII Rule 14 (1) CPC prescribes the procedure. - 27. No doubt, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agreement of sale, being the suit document, forms part of the pleadings, cannot be disregarded. Order VII Rule 14 (1) CPC prescribes the procedure. It is apt to reproduce Rule 14 (1) of the Order VII, which reads as follows: “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.” 28. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “ 23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512 ], read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 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.” 29. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief or not will be adjudicated by the Court after the trial. Whether the plaintiff acts contrary to the recital in the agreement is a question of fact; the Court will adjudicate by framing necessary issues based on the pleadings of the respective parties, after the evidence is let in. 30. In an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot consider the contentions raised in the written statement. If the plaint discloses a cause of action, the Court cannot reject it. 30. In an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot consider the contentions raised in the written statement. If the plaint discloses a cause of action, the Court cannot reject it. If a plain reading of the plaint it is found that the suit is vexatious and meritless, it can be rejected. The averments in the plaint must be read as a whole. The power to terminate the suit under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic one. 31. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal , [ (2017) 13 SCC 174 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” - 32. In K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan and others , [ (2021) 14 SCC 51 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 5, 7 and 9 observed as follows: “5. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the question before the Court is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint itself. While considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not to look into the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff or the defence raised by the defendant. 7. In any case, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint requires a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole. As held by this Court in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 : AIR 1998 SC 634 , clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. Similarly the Court must see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by devious and clever drafting of the plaint. Similarly the Court must see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by devious and clever drafting of the plaint. Moreover, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court. 9. Where on the face of the averments in the plaint, the claim in a suit is based on an agreement executed through a power of attorney- holder, the Court is not debarred from looking into the power of attorney. It is open to the Court to read the terms of the power of attorney along with the plaint in the same manner as documents appended to the plaint, which form part of the plaint.” 33. In Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemanth Kumar Jalan , [ (2022) 12 SCC 641 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. However, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon 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. This Court has held that the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been 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.” 34. The Apex Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy’s case, also observed that if a suit is found to be barred by law and manifestly vexatious and meritless, the plaint can be rejected. 35. In Akbar Ali’s case, the Apex Court observed that “when the suit is filed based on an agreement of sale executed by a power of attorney holder, the Court is not debarred from looking into power of attorney. 35. In Akbar Ali’s case, the Apex Court observed that “when the suit is filed based on an agreement of sale executed by a power of attorney holder, the Court is not debarred from looking into power of attorney. It is open to court to read terms of power of attorney along with plaint in same manner as documents appended to plaint, which form part of plaint.” 36. Thus, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must read the plaint as a whole, along with the suit documents. The recitals in the suit document concerning delivery of property after expiry of the lease and thereafter execution of the document, in favour of the plaintiff, can be termed as one of the facets of the cause of action. That itself cannot be termed as the sole cause of action. The plaintiff pleaded other instances also in the cause of action paragraph. It is for the Trial Court, as discussed supra, to frame issues and render its judgment after the parties let in evidence. - 37. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner initially contended regarding limitation, at the hearing, she did not press for it. Hence, this court is not going into that aspect. However, it is open to the defendants/revision petitioners to canvass the same before the Court below. 38. Whether the order of the Trial Court suffers from any perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 39. This Court in Uppalapu Venkata Krishna Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao v. Gajavalli Venkata Ramesh Bhavani Prasad (Died) , [ 2023 (2) ALD 516 ] considered the scope of a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and observed as thus: “25. Thus, the High Court, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can exercise its discretion to interfere in the following circumstances: (a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power. (b) When it refused to exercise jurisdiction. (c) When found an error of law apparent on the face of record. (d) Violated principles of natural justice. (e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. (f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. (g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure. (h) Order resulting in manifest injustice. (c) When found an error of law apparent on the face of record. (d) Violated principles of natural justice. (e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. (f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. (g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure. (h) Order resulting in manifest injustice. (i) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise.” - 40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. , [ (2001) 8 SCC 97 ] while considering scope of Article 227, it was observed that: “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 41. The Trial Court has considered all relevant aspects and rightly dismissed the application. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court, brooks interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Trial Court has considered all relevant aspects and rightly dismissed the application. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court, brooks interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the revision, and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 42. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The observations, if any, made in this order, are made only for the disposal of the revision and will not come in the way of the Trial Court in adjudicating the suit on merits. The learned trial Court also expedite the disposal of the suit. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.