Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 based on disputed facts or absence of declaratory relief.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the petitioner (defendant), claiming ownership and possession of property inherited from the late Pradeep Singh

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were attempting to dispossess them and interfere with their possession based on a forged and fabricated lease deed

The petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was not maintainable without a prayer for "declaration of rights" given the title dispute, and that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by special statutes regarding saline land

The Senior Civil Judge, Nawa City, rejected the application on 23.04.2026

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a revision petition before the High Court.

1. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for seeking only an injunction without a prayer for declaration of title when there is a dispute regarding proprietary rights

2. Whether the dispute involves questions of fact or jurisdictional bars that warrant the threshold rejection of the plaint

The Court applied the settled principles of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates that for the purpose of rejection of a plaint, the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments contained within the plaint, reading it as a whole and in a meaningful manner

The Court further applied the principle that the defense raised by the defendants cannot be considered at the stage of Order VII Rule 11

It relied on the doctrine that a suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable when a party pleads settled possession and ownership, and that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at the preliminary stage of rejection of the plaint

The High Court reasoned that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it cannot look into the written statement or the rival claims of the defendants

Upon a plain reading of the plaint, the plaintiffs clearly asserted their proprietary rights as legal heirs and their physical possession of the property

The Court observed that since the cause of action was based on a threat of dispossession by way of an allegedly forged lease deed, a suit for injunction was not barred by law at the threshold merely because a declaratory relief was absent

The Court held that whether the plaintiffs can ultimately prove their title or whether the documents are indeed forged are matters of evidence to be determined during trial

The Court noted that the petitioner's arguments regarding the "saline land" statutory bar and the necessity of declaration were essentially disputed questions of fact and law that do not fall within the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The Court affirmed that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not "barred by law" on the face of the record

The petition was dismissed at the admission stage, and all pending applications were disposed of