THE HON’’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1555 OF 2010 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 04.11.2009 in I.A.No.203 of 2009 in O.S.No.84 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest at 24% per annum to the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in July, 2006 and subsequently on 31.07.2007 the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.091475, drawn on Bank of India, Visakhapatnam, but the said cheque when presented for collection was returned on ground of ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice dated 18.03.2008 to the defendant for repayment of the amount, for which defendant gave a reply with all false allegations. A perusal of the plaint would disclose that the plaintiff made specific allegations regarding the alleged borrowal of the amount by the defendant and issuance of a cheque in discharge thereof and the alleged dishonour of the said cheque by the bank. There has been exchange of notices also. It is well settled that one of the grounds on which the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is, therefore, sufficient for entertaining the plaint if the plaint discloses the cause of action. It is not necessary that the cause of action shall be shown to be true and correct at this stage. It is a matter for appreciation on evidence adduced during the course of the trial as to whether or not the cause of action alleged in the plaint is true and correct and whether or not the suit is maintainable, based on such alleged cause of action. For the present, in the context of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, it is suffice if the plaint discloses the cause of action. The averments in the plaint would go to show that the plaintiff has made necessary allegations, which according to him, give rise to a cause of action mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. While the plaint discloses a cause of action, the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not warranted at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in the impugned order, a finding is recorded to the effect that the cause of action for the plaint arose from the date of return of the cheque. The question as to whether or not the cause of action alleged in the plaint is true and from what date the cause of action arose and whether the cause of action arose for filing the suit has arisen in the manner alleged in the plaint and if so from what date, are matters that have to be considered on evidence during the course of trial, but not at this stage. Inasmuch as a perusal of the plaint discloses specific cause of action for filing of the suit, the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is not called for. The application filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint is, therefore, unsustainable. The impugned order, dismissing the said application, does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30TH July, 2010 Pnv