gst 1 cra25.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2011. Sudhakar Apaji Patil .... ..... .... ...Applicant. V/s Smt.Madhuri Madhukar Patil ..... .... ..Respondent. Ms.Gauri Godse, Adv. For the applicant. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 25th Jan., 2011. PC: By way of present application the applicant challenges the order dated 1.9.2010 vide which the application filed by the present applicant for rejection of the plaint under Order 17 Rule 11 came to be rejected. Respondent No.1- plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Defendant No.1 is the brother of deceased husband of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that earlier decree passed in R C Suit No.205/95 was obtained by fraud and as such not binding on the plaintiff. 2. In the said suit an application under Order 17 Rule 11 came to be filed for rejection of the plaint. Same is rejected. Hence the present revision application. 3. Smt.Godse, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that in so far as the pleadings regarding fraud are concerned they are totally vague and without substance. She submits that unless the pleadings with respect to fraud give details about the alleged fraud suit would not be tenable. It is further submitted that the pleadings with respect to cause of action are totally vague and therefore on this count also application ought to have been allowed. Learned counsel relies on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. V/s Assistant Charity Commissioner gst 2 cra25.11.sxw & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 137. 4. For deciding the issue regarding tenability of the suit what would be relevant would be the averments made in the plaint. In this respect it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. (supra) cited by learned counsel for the applicant herself. Para 15 of the said judgment reads thus: “15. There cannot be any compartmentalization, disconnection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities. “ It can thus clearly be seen that the contention of the applicant in para 5 that there are no averments regarding fraud is without any substance. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. (supra) the averments in the plaint will have to be read in its entirety. One or two sentences from the plaint cannot be taken out to find out the intention of the plaintiff. Perusal of para 3 read with para 5 of the plaint would clearly reveal that the plaintiff has specifically averred that taking advantage of the plaintiff’s absence from Alibag the defendant No.1 had misrepresented the plaintiff and by giving her false confidence had obtained her signatures on various documents. In view of these specific pleadings read in entirety it cannot be said that the gst 3 cra25.11.sxw pleadings to substantiate the case of the plaintiff are absent in the plaint. 5. In so far as the contention of the applicant regrding cause of action being not pleaded is concerned, the said ground is not even taken in the application filed by the applicant under Order 17 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. Applying the same analogy to the applicant which the applicant streneously argues, that in the absence of such pleadings court could not have considered the issue that is now sought to be raised. 6. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that jurisdiction whichi has been exercised by the learned trial Court has been exercised with material irregularity so as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence Civil Revision Application is found without substance and the same is rejected. Needless to state that observations made by this Court are only for the limited purpose of considering the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application of the present applicant and that the learned trial Court would not be influenced by the same at the stage of trial.