37# % 16 .08 .2011 Present: Mr. Vivek Aggarwalforthepetitioner. +CRPNo . 108 /2011 * By thispetitionfiledunderSection115CPC, the petitionerseekstochallengetheorderdated4.7.2011passed bythelearnedAddl. PrincipalJudge,FamilyCourts, Rohini, Delhi whereby theapplicationfiledbythepetitionerunder Order VII Rule 11 oftheCode of Civil Procedure was dismissed . Assailing thesaid order, Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thatthe respondentduringthecourseofhiscross-examinationhad clearlyadmittedthefactthatinthemonth ofFebruary,2008, henotonlystayedwiththepetitionerbutalsocohabitedwith herandwiththesaidadmissiononhisparttheactsofcruelty allegedtohavebeencommittedbythepetitioner priortothe saidperiodstoodcondonedbyhim.Thecontentionofcounsel Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 9 for thepetitioneristhatwith the said admission on thepart of therespondent,no cause of action survived in his favour and,therefore,thepetitionfiled by himunderSection13(1) (ia)deserves outrightrejectionas per the mandate of Order VII Rule11CPC. Ihaveheardlearnedcounselforthepetitionerat considerablelengthand gonethroughtherecords. It is asettledlegal positionthattheallegations of crueltyleveledbytherespondentandprovedonrecordhave to betakenintoconsiderationas a whole and not piecemeal. Whether thebriefstayoftherespondentwith thepetitioner in the month ofFebruary, 2008 could have the effect of condoningthe acts of cruelty of the petitioner or notcallsfor in-depth examination at thefinalstageand not at thisstage and in any case not by invoking the provisions ofOrderVII Rule 11CPC. Non-disclosure ofcauseofactionorcauseof action having come to an end has to beestablishedonrecord inunambiguous and unequivocal termsand notjustby making a casual reference to some statement of the ;2 respondentinhis cross-examination. There is aclear distinctionbetweenacasewhere theplaintitselfdoes not discloseanycauseofactionandacasewheretheCourtafter consideringtheentirematerialonrecordincludingoraland documentaryevidencecomesto aconclusionthat therewas nocause of action and in the latter case the plaint cannot be rejectedunderOrder VII Rule 11 as thesaidprovision clearlyenvisagesrejectionoftheplaintonlyinacasewhere theplaintitselfdoesnotdiscloseanycauseofaction.The purposeofOrderVIIrule11istokeepirresponsiblelawsuits out of the courts. It isaimedattacklingsituationsofclever draftingofplaintswhere causeofactionisnotclearly disclosedor isillusory,and the courts after scrutiny of the plaintcometotheconclusionthatnocauseofactionhas beendisclosed.It cannot behoweverused in caseslikethe presentone andgo beyondtheambitof theplaintto adjudicatethepresenceofcauseofaction.ThelearnedTrial Court in the impugned order has thus rightly observed that thetestimonyof the respondentadmittinghis staywiththe petitioner inthemonth ofFebruary, 2008 cannot be s apparently considered ascondoningthe acts of cruelty by him . Inthelight of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the presentpetition, the same isherebydismissed. KAILASH GAMBHIR,J AUGUST16 ,2011 mg/dc/rkr