1 CRA 116/2011 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. M.A. Adkar i/b Mr. Sangramsinh Yadav for the applicant. Mr. Narendra Walawalkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. P.G. Chavan for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 21ST JUNE 2011 P.C. : 1. This revision application is directed against an order dated 23rd August 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, JMFC, Pune, rejecting the application made by the applicant (defendant no.3) for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”). 2. Learned counsel for the revision applicant 2 CRA 116/2011 submitted that the application was made under clause (a) and clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. Perusal of the application shows that the application was made only under clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 and not under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7. There are no averments relating to clause (d). Therefore, the grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant that the Court has not considered the case of the revision applicant for rejection of the plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code cannot be accepted. 3. So far as clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code is concerned, it provides that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. The learned Judge in paragraph 2 of his brief order has referred to the circumstances which disclose the existence of cause of action. I have also perused the plaint. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the plaint do disclose the existence of cause of action. In 3 CRA 116/2011 paragraph 8, the respondent (plaintiff) has specifically pleaded that the defendant nos.1 and 2 malafide and fraudulently got the building plans sanctioned for carrying out construction on the properties bearing survey nos.168 and 169 and that fraudulent sanction of the plans gives rise to the existence of cause of action. According to the respondent (plaintiff), he is the owner of the property bearing survey no.167 and no building plans could be sanctioned. He has secured a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of survey no.167 (part). He has further averred that by concealing these facts, the defendants got the plans sanctioned. These averments clearly disclose the existence of cause of action for filing of a suit. 4. Learned counsel for the revision applicant then submitted that the cause of action, if at all there be any, had come to an end and he has been stated about the cause of action coming to 4 CRA 116/2011 an end in paragraph 4 of his application. It is settled principle of law that jurisdiction of the Court is to be determined with reference to the averments in the plaint and not with reference to the defences which may be taken by the defendant in the written statement. 5. There is no merit in the revision application which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)