The Supreme Court in the case G. Nagaraj vs B.P. Mruthunjayanna observed and has stated that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 merely because there being some inconsistent averments in the plaint.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal in the case observed while dealing with an application moved under Rule 11 of Order VII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, only of the averments made in the plaint and the documents which are produced along with the plaint and are being required to be seen.
In the present case, the plaintiff filed a suit in the city Civil Court at Bangalore, wherein it claimed a declaration of title and for the permanent injunction. Thus, the said court allowed the application moved the defendants and the Plaint was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. Thus, the High Court upheld the said order.
However, it has also been contended in an appeal before the Apex Court that the Courts have gone into the question of correctness of the averments made in the plaint wherein the court pointed out inconsistent statements made in the plaint.
The bench in the case observed while dealing with the application moved under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents are being produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. Further, the court stated that the defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into, when the said ground pleaded for the rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the said court in the case has to examine the plaint and has to see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint.
It has also been noted that the Trial Court and the High Court have gone into the question of correctness of the averments made in the plaint wherein pointing out the inconsistent statements made in the plaint.
Further, the court observed while allowing the appeal and restoring the suit that the said court finds that the cause of action for filing the suit has been pleaded in some detail. It is also being pleaded in the case how the first appellant acquired title to the property. This court is of the view that merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint.