1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 3 rd OF JANUARY, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 361 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
M/S RELIANCE CEMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD. (NOW
KNOWN AS RCCPL PVT. LTD.) THROUGH ITS
MANAGER, SIYAL GHOGHRI COAL MINES, TEHSIL
UMRETH, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.1
(BY SHRI R.CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. MANMINDER SINGH S/O SHRI SURENDRA SINGH
ARORA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, BEHIND
GURUDWARA PARASIYA, TEHSIL PARASIYA,
DISTT. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
[RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF]

2. MINING OFFICER (DISTRICT MINERAL

FOUNDATION) CHHINDWARA, OFFICE OF THE
COLLECTOR, CHHINDWARA DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE COLLECTOR

C H H I N D W A R A COLLECTOR OFFICE,
CHHINDWARA DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI R.S.SAINI - ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 BY SHRI R.PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)

This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Though this matter has been listed for orders on admission, however,
 2
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties it is finally heard.
2. This revision has been filed by the applicant/defendant no.1
/M/s.Reliance Cement Company Pvt.Ltd. against order dated 05.5.2022 passed
by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parasisya, District Chhindwara in
RCSA/19/2022 whereby his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has
been rejected.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on the
same spot or disputed land the Central Government has granted lease to extract
coal to his party, whereas the State Government granted lease for stone
crushing or extracting of minor minerals from the top to the respondent, earlier

in time. It is further submitted by learned counsel that in paragraph 2 of the

plaint it is stated that lease in favour of plaintiff-Manminder Singh expired on
04.1.2019 and before expiry of the lease he has already filed an application for
renewal of lease with Mining Officer, District Chhindwara, therefore, suit was
filed for permanent injunction.
4. The petitioner/revisionist/defendant filed an application under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial Court which was dismissed vide order
dated 05.5.2022 (Annexure-A/4) on the ground that only plaint averments are to
be seen and not the defence of the defendants.
5. Perused the record. Revision has been filed on the ground that no
cause of action has arisen on the provision under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He
further submits that plaintiff has filed Writ Petition No.12699/2020 [Manminder
Vs. State] in the High Court, but subsequently it was withdrawn on 11.11.2020.
The order of writ court is at Page No.35 of this revision. In
W.P.No.12699/2020 also the issue of renewal of lease was involved.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, on being
 3
asked specific question regarding validity of lease period to learned counsel for
the respondent-Manminder Singh, he admitted that on the date of filing of the
suit, especially in the light of withdrawal of the Writ Petition No.12699/2020 by
plaintiff there was already no lease in favour of plaintiff-Manminder Singh.
7. On hearing learned counsel and perusing the record, this Court is of
the considered view that on the date of filing of suit there was no cause of
action in favour of plaintiff and the same would arise only when the lease deed
is renewed or application was decided one way or the other. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court learned trial Court erred in recording finding in
respect of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court under Order 7
Rule 11(a) of CPC has to see whether only cause of action has arisen in favour
of plaintiff.
8. In this regard it is worth referring to the decision in the case of
Dahiben Vs. Arvind Bhai Kalyanji Bhansali, 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562
[Civil Appeal No.9519/2010 decided on on 09.7.2020] wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused
the plaint and documents filed therewith, as also the written submissions
filed on behalf of the parties.
12.1 We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as

under-:
“11. Rejection of plaint.– The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases:–
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed in undervalued, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be
 4
fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is
written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time
to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the
valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be
extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that
the plaintiff was prevent by any cause of exceptional nature for
correction the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the
case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend
such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
(emphasis supplied) ​
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
 5
wasted.
In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi1 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 xxxxxxx
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.
 6
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.,4 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.
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.5 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.

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. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must
necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain
(supra).
 7
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.
13. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary
for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to
judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary
for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in
the suit.
In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam this Court
held:-
“24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed,
it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an 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”
(emphasis supplied)
In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.9 this Court held that
while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is
required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of
action, or something purely illusory, in the following words: -
“5. …The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful
– not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and
meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should
 8
exercise his power under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the
ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created
the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing…”
(emphasis supplied)
Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates
illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must
be made out in the plaint.
If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the
illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra
Murthy v. Syed Jalal11 held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that
bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage.
The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or
suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious,
and an abuse of the process of the court.
14. .........A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v.
Gurdev Singh,13 held that the Court must examine the plaint and
determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and
whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words “right
to sue” means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The
right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must
be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when
there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the
defendant against whom the suit is instituted.
Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the
averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be
rejected."

9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits

 9

that for cancellation of application for renewal of lease a proposal was already
sent on 02.11.2020 by Collector and information was given to plaintiff-
Manminder vide endorsement No.4006 dated 02.11.2020.
10. It was the duty of the learned trial Court to see before
registration of the plaint whether any cause of action has arisen or not. Learned
trial Court did not consider the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC.
Resultantly, this revision is allowed and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff being
without any cause of action is dismissed.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

JUDGE
RM
Digitally signed by RAJESH
MAMTANI
Date: 2024.01.09 18:47:31 +05'30'