Pleading scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11 cannot defeat suits unless a clear bar or no cause of action appears on the plaint itself.

A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 only when, reading the plaint as a whole and accepting its averments as true, it ex facie discloses no cause of action or an apparent bar of law. On that standard, the plaints were not liable to rejection because the pleadings did not any clear limitation bar and were stated to be filed within time from the date of knowledge. The suits also were not treated as benami claims; they sought declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential reliefs, so the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act did not justify threshold rejection. The rejection order was set aside and the suits were directed to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaints were liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that they did not disclose a cause of action or were barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the suits were hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

Issue (i): Whether the plaints were liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that they did not disclose a cause of action or were barred by limitation.

Analysis: Rejection of a plaint at the threshold is a drastic power and can be exercised only when the plaint, read as a whole, ex facie discloses no cause of action or shows that the suit is barred by law. At that stage, the averments in the plaint alone have to be accepted as true and the defence set up in the written statement or application is irrelevant. On the plaint pleadings, the suits were filed within the period stated from the date of knowledge and did not, on their face, disclose any statutory bar or limitation bar.

Conclusion: The plaints were not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground of absence of cause of action or limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the suits were hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

Analysis: The suits were not framed as claims to recover property held benami by the defendants. They were suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession, with consequential reliefs. On that basis, the Benami law did not furnish a ground for rejection of the plaints at the threshold.

Conclusion: The suits were not barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the plaints was set aside and both suits were directed to proceed to trial on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: For deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, the plaint must be read as a whole and its averments accepted as true, and the plaint can be rejected only if it plainly discloses no cause of action or an apparent bar of law.

---