1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2054 of 2008 KARAMAT HUSSAIN & ANR Versus MOSTT. BHASO DEVI ----------- 2 8/12/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The court below while considering prayer of the petitioners-defendants in a suit seeking mandatory injunction has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioners in terms of Order VII, rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That is so because right or wrong the facts mentioned in the plaint and whether cause of action as mentioned in the plaint are correct or otherwise, cannot be made subject matter of rejection of a plaint. Reliance placed on section 39 of the Specific Relief Act by counsel for the petitioner seems to be also misconceived. It is so because requirement of section 39 of the Specific Relief Act is only to vest power in the court with regard to preventing breach of obligation and in this context when the plaintiff-opposite party has made out specific case that right from 1944 she through her father-in- 2 2 law followed by her husband had been in occupation of the shop in question for which rent was being paid initially by her father-in-law followed by her husband and then by her, her cause of action on being threanted to be dispossessed with the help of police at least cannot be said lacking any ingredients for grant of mandatory injunction. At the stage of examination of plea of rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court cannot look into defence of the defendants mentioned in the written statement. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff was never inducted as tenant and there was no Kirayanama and/or agreement, are all matter of defence which cannot be looked into within the very narrow scope of Order VII, rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and accordingly the same is dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)