Illusory cause of action and limitation evasion can justify rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

A plaint may be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC where, on a meaningful reading of its own averments, it discloses only an illusory cause of action and is framed to evade limitation. The plaint here rested on an alleged error in a 1953 partition deed, yet sought no relief against that foundational document while challenging later transactions as lacking title. The Court treated this as clever drafting that concealed the real dispute, found no genuine cause of action, and held the suit to be an abuse of process; rejection of the plaint was upheld in favour of the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that it disclosed an illusory cause of action and was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The plaint was examined on its own averments and was found to rest on the premise that the partition deed of 11.03.1953 contained an error in the survey number. However, no relief was sought against that partition deed, even though the suit in substance proceeded on the assertion that the deed was and that subsequent transactions were without title. On a meaningful reading, the pleadings showed an attempt to avoid the limitation bar by not challenging the foundational document directly. The suit was therefore treated as one created by clever drafting, disclosing no real cause of action and amounting to an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the conclusion was in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint that, on a meaningful reading, discloses only a cleverly drafted and illusory cause of action and is framed to circumvent limitation can be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---