1 wp 5129.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5129 OF 2011 Mahadev Narhari Bhondave and others .. Petitioners Versus Pandurang Barikrao Kavde .. Respondent Shri V. S. Undre, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the original defendants. The present respondent has filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his possession. The present petitioners have filed an application U/O VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint does not discloses the cause of action, so also the duplicate copy of the plaint as is required has not been provided. The Trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2 wp 5129.11 2. Shri Undre, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the Court below has not considered the application of petitioners in its correct perspective and without taking into consideration the grounds raised has rejected the application. The learned counsel further contends that the plaint can be rejected U/O VII Rule 11 for non disclosure of cause of action at any stage. When the facts were pointed out to the learned Judge about non disclosure of cause of action and that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action, the same should have been dealt with by the Court in its correct perspective. The names of the defendants were not entered into cultivation column and so date of cause of action said to have been mentioned i. e. 12.05.2011 cannot be said to be true and correct. The plaintiff has also not given any details in the plaint regarding how the obstruction was being committed. Just by mentioning one line that cause of action arose on 12.05.2011 that would not be sufficient. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Shri P. R. Sukeshwala Vs. Dr. Devdutta V. /s. Kerkar reported in 1995 (4) Bom. C. R. 89. 3. The cause of action has to culled out from the entire 3 wp 5129.11 pleadings. The cause of action is bundle of facts as is reflected from the whole pleadings. The plaintiff in the suit has given recitals of his exclusive ownership and the land being ancestral property in para 4 of the plaint. The plaintiff has pleaded about his ownership and possession and about the acts of the defendants in mutating their names and trying to interfere in the possession. So also has averred overt acts on the part of the defendants in trying to dispossess him. The plaintiff has pleaded about his ownership and the overt acts on the parts of defendants. Whether the plaintiff would be in a position to prove the said facts is another issue altogether, which cannot be a subject matter of an application U/O VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It cannot be said that the plaint is sans any cause of action. The proposition laid down in the judgment by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Shri P. R. Sukeshwala referred supra is not disputed. The Court has the power to reject the plaint if it does not disclose the cause of action or struck off the pleadings. But in the present case, the perusal of the whole plaint it cannot be said that the plaint is devoid of any cause of action. The other objections that duplicate copy is not supplied would not entail the rejection of plaint in as much as it is procedural part. It can be said to be a curable defect. For 4 wp 5129.11 the said purpose the provisions of Rule 11 cannot be invoked for rejection of plaint. The plaintiff can cure the said defect also. 4. In the light of the above no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11