A plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be assessed solely on its pleadings, not the defence.

The plaintiffs claimed through their predecessor, who had purchased land later acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

They alleged that the suit site had been retained by their predecessor and should have been reconveyed to them, but that the BDA instead executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2, who subsequently entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No. 3.

The plaintiffs sought, among other reliefs, a declaration that the BDA’s sale deed was void and not binding on them, reconveyance of the site, and a permanent injunction.

Defendant No. 4 applied under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejection of the plaint.

The Trial Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit, reasoning that acquisition had vested the property in the Government and the civil court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs appealed under Section 96 CPC.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint and allowing defendant No. 4’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the circumstances of the case.

The appeal was considered under Section 96 CPC, and the application for rejection of the plaint was brought under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) CPC.

The Court stated that an application under Order VII Rule 11 must be considered on the basis of the plaint’s pleadings, without relying on the written statement.

The plaintiffs’ pleaded case was that they sought reconveyance and challenged the BDA’s sale deed to defendant No. 2 as having been obtained through fraud; they did not seek to invalidate the acquisition proceedings.

The Trial Court’s conclusion that acquisition itself deprived the civil court of jurisdiction did not address that pleaded case.

The High Court therefore held that the Trial Court had not properly considered the plaintiffs’ claim and that the plaint had to be assessed from its own averments.

The Court did not finally determine limitation or the merits of the claim; it directed reconsideration of the Order VII Rule 11 application.

It remitted defendant No. 4’s application for fresh consideration in accordance with law and continued the interim order until the Trial Court passes an appropriate order.