HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 555 OF 2011 Between: M/s Hansa Lederman Firm represented by Proprietor Syed Afsar hasan ..... PETITIONER AND Jahangier Shareef S/o Late KhSmt. Sarojini Bai and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2010 passed in I.A.No. 901 of 2010 in O.S.No. 1427 of 2009 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. First respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 1427 of 2009. He filed the suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rents and costs. Defendant in the suit viz., petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 901 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, praying the Court to reject the plaint in O.S.No. 1427 of 2009. The Court below dismissed the I.A holding that nothing has been stated in the affidavit of the petitioners’ regarding bar created by any law for the time being in force to reject the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Court below ought to have found, that the un-registered and unstamped lease deed dated 20.1.1989 and its contents, being plaint averments, did not create any relationship of landlord and tenant and the plea in the plaint, that the plaintiff is a lessor is per se and invalid under law, and they did not disclose any cause of action and hence, the Court ought to have rejected the plaint. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ITC LIMITED VS. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS[1], wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph 13 of the judgment, observed as under: “13. We may state that in the context of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a contention that once issues have been framed, the matter has necessarily to go to trial has been already rejected by this Court in AZAR HUSSAIN VS. RAJIV GANDHI (1986 (supp) SCC 315 (p.324): (AIR 1986 SC 1253 para 12 as follows: “In substance, the argument is that the Court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only after the trial…. Is concluded that the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing with a defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised with respect to the learned counsel, it is ;an argument which it is difficult to comprehend. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court”. The above said judgment which related to an election petition is clearly applicable to suits also and was followed in Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath, 1987 (Supp) SCC 663: (AIR 1987 SC 19261. We therefore hold that the fact that issues have been framed in the suit cannot come in the way of consideration of this application filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.” He also relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in SANJAY KAUSHIS VS. D.C. KAUSHIS AND OTHERS, wherein it is held that whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, the court has to only see the averments in the plaint and the accompanying documents relied upon in the plaint and the facts elicited from the plaintiff by examining him under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. To maintain a suit it is sufficient if the bundle of facts mentioned in the plaint disclose a cause of action and it is immaterial whether the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in a suit to substantiate the pleadings constituting cause of action are admissible in evidence or not. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Court below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaint discloses cause of action to maintain the suit and nothing has been stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner herein regarding bar created by any law for the time being in force to reject the plaint. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 30.09.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 1998 SC 634