JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Regular First Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order on I.A.No.III dated 24.01.2025 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere ('trial Court' for short) in O.S.No.104/2024. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court. 3. We have heard Shri. Revanna Bellary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Shri. G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.5/defendant No.4. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of the suit schedule property asserting that the plaintiff and the defendants are members of a joint family and that the property is joint family property, entitling the plaintiff to a 1/20 th share. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement contending that he is the adopted son of A.V. Rama Rao and Parvathi Bai, that A.V. Rama Rao died leaving defendant No.4 as a sole legal heir and that the plaintiff and the other defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Thereafter defendant No.4 filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it discloses no cause of action. 5. It was stated that the plaintiff intentionally and knowingly suppressed the existence of the Adoption Deed and instituted a suit for partition and separate possession on the false premise that A.V. Rama Rao died intestate. According to defendant No.4, by virtue of the Registered Adoption Deed, he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and since the plaint does not disclose any real cause of action, he sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The plaintiff contended that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint. The pleas raised by the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint on merits would be irrelevant and cannot be adverted to or taken into consideration. The pleas raised by the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint on merits would be irrelevant and cannot be adverted to or taken into consideration. It was further contended that the Court may look only into the documents referred to or relied upon in the plaint and not into documents produced or relied upon by the defendant. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following point for consideration:- "Whether defendant No.4 has made out ground to reject the plaint by invoking the provisions Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, for want of cause of action?" 8. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and was guilty of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation and therefore was not entitled to any relief. Relying upon the observation of the Apex Court, it was held that where a plaint does not disclose a cause of action or the suit is barred by law, the Court should not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. When a suit amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, being vexatious or meritless the power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be exercised. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the trial Court passed the impugned order on I.A.No.III without properly considering the objections filed by the appellant and erroneously relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court cited by defendant No.4, which were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The impugned order is perverse, unsustainable in the eye of law contrary to settled principles and suffers from infirmities. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to confine itself to the averments made in the plaint, the documents produced by the appellant, instead relied upon the written statement and documents produced by defendant No.4. The settled legal position that only plaint averments are to be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was ignored and the plaint was rejected without valid or cogent reasons. 10. The settled legal position that only plaint averments are to be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was ignored and the plaint was rejected without valid or cogent reasons. 10. It is also contended that the trial Court wrongly held, particularly in paragraphs No.11 to 15 of the impugned order, that defendant No.4 alone has rights over the suit schedule property and that the other parties in O.S.No.104/2024 have no rights therein, which amounts to adjudicating the merits of the case at the interlocutory stage. It is further submitted that I.A.No.III could be allowed if the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action and not on disputed questions of title. It is further contended that the trial Court incorrectly concluded that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, despite the same being clearly pleaded in paragraph No.10 of the plaint. Whether such cause of action is true or sustainable requires evidence and is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Not conducting a full-fledged trial at the stage of deciding I.A.No.III is impermissible. It is further contended that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the plaint are unsustainable and that the propositions laid down in the Apex Court judgment relied upon by the respondent are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy & Another v. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others , by order dated 13.02.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2006. The paragraphs No.5 and 6 of the said judgment, read as follows:- "5. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial. 6. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said pleadings ex facie discloses that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any other provision of law. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order VII rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant." 12. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on the other hand, contended that the suit itself was an abuse of process of the Court. It is submitted that respondent No.5 is the adopted son of A.V. Rama Rao and Parvathi Bai. This fact was perfectly known to all the members of the family including the plaintiffs. It is submitted that A.V. Rama Rao passed away on 18.09.1970. Thereafter, respondent No.5 who was the adopted son had been enjoying the property as the legal heir of A.V. Rama Rao. The revenue records were mutated in his name and he was openly in possession of the property to the exclusion of all others. It is submitted that the plaint filed alleging that A.V. Rama Rao died issueless on 18.09.1970 and that the appellant is in illegal possession of the property, is clearly an abuse of process of Court. The revenue records were mutated in his name and he was openly in possession of the property to the exclusion of all others. It is submitted that the plaint filed alleging that A.V. Rama Rao died issueless on 18.09.1970 and that the appellant is in illegal possession of the property, is clearly an abuse of process of Court. It is submitted that the adoption deed dated 23.08.1959 was a registered document and that the adoption was common knowledge and was intentionally suppressed by the appellant herein. 13. We have considered the contentions advanced. The specific contention in the plaint was that the schedule property was allotted to the share of A.V. Rama Rao, who died issueless on 18.09.1970. The plaint averment was that, Katha was taken in the name of defendant No.4 - A. N. Madankumar and he is attempting to alienate the schedule property to defeat share and rights of the parties to the case. Paragraph No.10 of the memorandum of plaint reads as follows:- "10. A cause of action aroses on when 03.12.2023, when the Plaintiff has came to knowledge that the Defendant no.4 has took Katha of the schedule property in his name and obtained Certified Copy of the Partition Deed dated 08.11.1939 on 04.12.2023 and Katha extract on 12.03.2024 and it is came to knowledge that the Defendant no.4 is trying to dispose the schedule property on 03.12.2023 and obtained copies of the documents above and approached the Defendant no.4 and other defendants on 07.04.2024 for partition of the schedule property and refused by them. Hence, this suit filed on today is in time." 14. It is obvious that the attempt of the appellant was to mislead the Court by suppressing the registered adoption deed dated 23.08.1959. It is true that the said deed of adoption was produced by defendant No.4 and was not part of the plaint averments. However, it is also clear that the appellant has no contentions, on facts, as against the written statement filed by defendant No.4 or the fact of a Registered Adoption deed dated 23.08.1959 by which A.V. Rama Rao and his wife Parvathi Bai adopted defendant No.4 in the suit. It needs no reiteration that a plaint filed suppressing material facts can be rejected at the first instance itself, if such suppression is found by the Court. 15. It needs no reiteration that a plaint filed suppressing material facts can be rejected at the first instance itself, if such suppression is found by the Court. 15. The Apex Court in Ramjas Foundation and another v. Union of India and others reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38 has clearly considered the issue and held at paragraph No.21 as follows:- "21 . The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case." 16. The Apex Court has clearly held that the rule against suppression is applicable to all judicial proceedings and not merely to discretionary exercise of power. The trial Court has proceeded to consider the facts of the instant case and the power of the Court to reject a plaint when the attempt by the plaintiff is to suppress material facts so as to gain an undue advantage, such suppression clearly amounts to an abuse of process of Court. These aspects of the matter have been specifically considered by the trial Court with reference to the judgments on the point. 17. Having considered the contentions advanced and in the light of the inability of the appellant to raise any contentions with regard to the Registered Adoption Deed dated 23.08.1959; we are of the opinion that there is no error in the exercise of the power for rejection of the plaint by the trial Court. No good grounds having been made out, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.