Pleading a cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 depends on plaint averments alone, not the defence.

For an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court considers only the plaint averments and not the defence in the written statement. The test is whether a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed. Allegations of mala fides, fraudulent intention or knowledge need not be pleaded with detailed particulars, as such mental elements may be stated as facts. On the pleaded facts, the tender process was allegedly not pursued to favour an existing contractor, causing legal prejudice to the plaintiff, so rejection of the plaint was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action so as to justify rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are relevant and the defence set up in the written statement cannot be looked into. The test is whether a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed. Allegations of mala fides, fraudulent intention or knowledge need not be pleaded with detailed particulars, because Order 6 Rule 10 permits such mental elements to be pleaded as facts without setting out the circumstances from which they are to be inferred. On the plaint averments, the plaintiff asserted that the tender process was not taken forward in order to favour the existing contractor and that this caused legal prejudice to the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The plaint disclosed a cause of action and rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 was not warranted.

---