1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3092 of 2008 Abdul Rehman Abdul Jabbar Vs. Amnabee Ismail Pathan & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 25 th July, 2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Suit was instituted for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit property. It is alleged that petitioner-defendant and respondents-plaintiffs are related to each other and each of them have 1/4th share in the suit property. Main contention of the plaintiff is that there was no partition by meets and bounds although she has been put in possession of some portion, newly constructed by the defendant petitioner. 2 The defendant-petitioner filed an application purporting to be an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code contending that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the plaint should be rejected. The main contention of the defendant is that plaintiff has already taken her 1/4th share and therefore there is no subsisting cause of action in her favour and therefore plaint is liable to be rejected. Learned Judge of the trial court rejected the application on the ground that the contention raised by the defendant need to be considered on merits and the application was therefore liable to be rejected. It is this order that is challenged. After having gone through the plaint it appears that plaintiff has certainly contended that there was no partition amongst her and other sharers by meets and bounds and she has sought partition of her 1/4th share. Allegations in the plaint definitely go to show that she has taken possession of certain portion of the property but then her main contention was that there was no partition by meets and bounds. Plaint did not 3 disclose any cause of action. Although the plaint was not rejected by the trial Court on that ground, the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that plaint does not disclose any cause of action. In view of that, I do not find any substance in the writ petition, it is dismissed. JUDGE svk