Court cannot look beyond plaint averments or conduct evidentiary verification at Order VII Rule 11 stage.

The Appellants (plaintiffs) filed Title Suit No. 122 of 2015 for a declaration of title over 21.90 acres of land in Bhagalpur, claiming their predecessor-in-interest acquired the land via a 1925 settlement from an ex-landlord.

They alleged that in 2015, they discovered the jamabandi (land revenue record) had been erroneously recorded in the name of the Agriculture Department, and they were threatened with dispossession.

The Subordinate Judge, Kahalgaon, at the admission stage, rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

The lower court based its rejection on the grounds that the plaintiffs' documents appeared "suspicious" after conducting a verification inquiry with the Collector and noting a lack of rent receipts post-Zamindari vesting.

The lower court also imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000/- on the plaintiffs.

1. Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by conducting an evidentiary inquiry and relying on external materials at the admission stage.

2. Whether the rejection of the plaint was legally sustainable based on the "disputed nature" of the facts presented in the plaint.

The court primarily applied Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the rejection of plaints.

The court must only look at the averments in the plaint to determine a cause of action, and the defendant's plea is irrelevant at that stage.

The power to reject a plaint is "drastic" and requires stringent adherence to the rule that plaint averments must be accepted as true.

Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated during an Order VII Rule 11 hearing.

The trial court committed a jurisdictional error by traveling beyond the four corners of the plaint. While the trial court is mandated to assume the statements in the plaint are true for the purpose of admission, the Subordinate Judge instead acted as a trial court by evaluating the "reliability" of the plaintiffs' return and calling for external verification from the Collector.

The High Court reasoned that whether documents are "suspicious" or whether the plaintiffs can prove possession through rent receipts are matters of trial and evidence, not preliminary assessment.

By looking into the "meritless" nature of the suit based on external reports, the trial court bypassed the settled legal position that the scope of inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 is limited to whether the plaint discloses a "right to sue" on its face.

The High Court set aside the order dated 24.06.2017, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter back to the Subordinate Judge, Kahalgaon, to decide the admission afresh in accordance with law. No order was passed as to costs for the appeal.