***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. –

The present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner, who is one of the defendants in Civil Suit No. CS-825-2022 titled Surender v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. Challenge is to the order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-5), whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an earlier suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff on the same cause of action had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.07.2021 (Annexure P-2) without obtaining liberty to institute a fresh suit. It is argued that in view of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC, the subsequent suit is ex facie barred by law and, therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

3. I have considered the submission but find no merit therein.

4. The scope of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well settled. While considering such an application, the Court is required to confine itself exclusively to the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. Neither the defence set up by the defendants nor any disputed question of fact can be taken into consideration. Rejection of the plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 is permissible only where the bar created by any law is apparent from the statements contained in the plaint itself. If determination of the alleged bar requires investigation into disputed facts or appreciation of evidence, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.

5. The learned trial Court has examined the plaint from the aforesaid perspective and has noticed that in paragraph 7 thereof, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the earlier suit was withdrawn because defendant No.3 had issued letter No.1414 dated 28.04.2021 assuring the plaintiff that the electricity transformer installed over the suit land would be shifted, if the pending suit was withdrawn. It has further been pleaded that acting upon the said assurance, the plaintiff withdrew the earlier suit, but despite such withdrawal, the transformer was not removed, thereby giving rise to the necessity of instituting the present proceedings. The learned trial Court, while rejecting the application, observed as under:

"Thus, it is clear that plaint can be rejected under this clause only if the suit appears to be barred by law from the reading itself. No other factual pleading made by defendant can be looked into at this stage. Whether the present suit is barred by Law or does not disclose a cause of action would be a question of fact which can be decided only after parties have led their evidence. That adjudication cannot be made in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, 1908. In the present application, the plea taken by the applicant is that the respondent/plaintiff had earlier filed a suit on same cause of action which was withdrawn by him on 07.06.2021 and thus, the present suit is not maintainable as it is on same cause of action. Here, it is observed that the plaintiff in para no.7 of the suit has clearly stated that he withdrew the earlier suit in view of letter no.1414 dated 28.04.2021 issued by applicant/defendant in which they assured the plaintiff that applicant/defendant will remove the transformer from the suit land only if he withdraws the earlier suit. In view of the said letter, the earlier suit was withdrawn but to the utter surprise of respondent/plaintiff that the transformer was not removed from the suit land and thus, the present suit has to be filed by plaintiff. This clearly shows that the respondent/plaintiff has a clear cause of action and the present application is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed."

6. The aforesaid reasoning does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Once the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the earlier suit came to be withdrawn on the basis of an assurance extended by the defendants and that the assurance was subsequently breached, the question whether such plea is genuine, whether the alleged assurance was in fact given, whether the plaintiff acted upon it and whether the subsequent suit is nevertheless barred by virtue of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC are all matters requiring adjudication on evidence. Such issues cannot be decided merely on the basis of the defendant's objections in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

7. Learned counsel has argued that the order dated 06.07.2021 permitting withdrawal of the earlier suit does not record the aforesaid reason. However, this submission also does not advance the petitioner's case. At this stage, the Court is not required to test the correctness, truthfulness or eventual proof of the averments made in the plaint. The omission of the withdrawal order to record the plaintiff's pleaded reason may ultimately have evidentiary consequences, but it cannot be made a ground for rejecting the plaint at the threshold. Whether the plaintiff succeeds in proving the circumstances pleaded in paragraph 7 of the plaint is an issue to be decided after the parties have adduced evidence.

8. Significantly, the plea of statutory bar raised by the petitioner is itself dependent upon the determination of disputed foundational facts. Where the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC is not apparent solely from the averments contained in the plaint and its invocation requires adjudication of contested facts, the suit cannot be held to be barred by law within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is intended to weed out only those suits where the legal bar is patent on the face of the plaint and not where such bar becomes arguable only after examining rival factual assertions.

9. The impugned order, therefore, reflects a correct appreciation of the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. No jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity is shown warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional/supervisory jurisdiction.

10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. Needless to observe that any observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and shall not prejudice the merits of the suit, which shall be decided independently on the basis of the evidence led by the parties.

Petition dismissed.

********