IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2009 THE ATTORNEY THE COMMUNIDADE OF THIVIM ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. PANDURANG HARISHCHANDRA TORASKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes,Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A.R. Kantak with Ms. R. Kantak for R-1. Mr. G. Nagvekar, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 9th July, 2010 P.C: This revision challenges the order dated 17th March, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Bicholim, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be dismissed. 2. The application was filed by the Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C on the ground that the relief sought in the suit cannot be granted by the Civil Court as well as on the ground that there is no cause of action shown in the plaint to proceed against the petitioner herein. The respondents opposed the said contention of the petitioner. The learned Judge after hearing both the parties by the impugned order dated 17th March 2009 rejected the said application filed by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order and contented that the learned trial judge has acted in material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.He further submitted that as the Respondent no.1 is claiming on the basis of tenancy rights, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. He also submitted that there are no averments in the plaint again t the Petitioenr to disclose any cause of action. The respondent no.1 has supported the impugned order. 4. On perusal of the plaint, I find that this suit has been filed by the respondent no.1 on the basis that the Respondent no.2 had trespassed into the suit property and damaged the cashew plantation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The Respondent no.1 has further alleged that the Petitioner and the Respondent no.3 have acted in collusion with the Respondent no.2. The relief claimed in the suit includes relief for mandatory injunction, restrain on alienation and recovery of damages. As such, on the face of the allegation in the plaint and reliefs claimed, the learned trial Judge was justified to dismiss the application for the rejection of the plaint at this stage. 5. Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C has limited application. For its applicability it must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. What would be relevant for invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or substraction. For the purpose of invoking the said provision, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision. As far as the contention of the learned Cousnel for the Petitioenr that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Petitioner, I find that the same cannot be accepted at this stage on reading the plaint as a whole. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action is essentially a question of fact. In order to ascertain as to whether it does or does not it must be found out from reading the plaint itself in its entirety and it is not permissible to cult a sentence or passage in isolation. The veracity of allegation made by the Respondent no.1 will have to be considered after the trial in the suit and not at this stage of the proceedings, when by reading the plaint as a whole, it does disclose a cause of action. 6. The learned trial Judge has considered the matter in a proper perspective and, hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order and as such, the above revision stands dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. ap/-