1. Heard Sri J.Venudhar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

2. The present revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.704 of 2023 in O.S.No.760 of 2022 dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11-A CPC.

3. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of money of Rs.10,08,790/- against the person and properties of the defendants and award future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Pending adjudication of the suit, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.704 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking the relief of rejection of plaint on two grounds viz., (i) there is no cause of action for filing the suit, and (ii) the suit is filed against the dissolved partnership firm.

4. It is contended in the said I.A. that the suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.10,08,790/- on the ground that the husband of the plaintiff paid Rs.4,78,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on 23.09.2024 and 29.11.2013 to the State Bank of Hyderabad on account of liability arose by the defendants. However, it was submitted that the plaintiff did not pay any amount much less an amount of Rs.5,18,000/- on account of NPA loan due by the defendants, and therefore, no cause of action arose to institute the suit. Hence, prays to allow the petition by rejecting the plaint.

5. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter-affidavit in the said I.A., opposing the petition and contending that the cause of action in detail is mentioned in Clause IV in page No.5 of the plaint, which needs to be adjudicated and decided by the Trial Court after full fledged trial. It is further submitted that in clause IV of the affidavit, the petitioners themselves extracted the cause of action in verbatim as pleaded in the plaint, and therefore, Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is not attracted for the reason that the plaint discloses the cause of action which needs to be adjudicated during the trial.

6. While addressing the second ground, with respect to the dissolution of the partnership firm, the same is disputed question of fact and not covered by any of the sub-sections of Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) CPC. Even otherwise, a disputed question of fact is required to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial based on oral and documentary evidence and accordingly prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. The learned Trial Court upon considering the rival submissions and pleadings, dismissed the application holding that the liability in respect of debt discharge by husband of the plaintiff is required to be adjudicated, for which, evidence is required to be led by both parties, the disputed fact cannot be decided at prima facie and therefore, the contention that the plaint is liable to be rejected for being barred by law cannot be accepted.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the present CRP is filed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J.Venudhar Reddy, contended that the plaint contains mutually inconsistent averments regarding the very person who made the payment constituting the foundation of the suit, and that the plaintiff has not pleaded any material facts explaining the legal basis upon which the payment made by her husband became, in law, a payment made by the plaintiff. It is further contended that the plaint does not disclose any agreement, assignment, agency, authority, reimbursement, or other judicial arrangement by virtue of which alleged payment made by Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, gave rise to an enforceable right of recovery in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel further contended that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, the plaint is required to be read as a whole in a meaningful manner, clever or conclusory drafting cannot create an illusion of cause of action where foundational facts are absent.

10. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application, failed to appreciate several contentions raised by the petitioners including whether the facts in a plaint constitute a legally enforceable right in favour of the plaintiff or not, where there is no cause of action.

11. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjula v/s. D.A.Srinivas (2026 SCC Online SC 831); Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust ((2012) 8 SCC 706) ; ABC Laminart Private Limited v/s. A.P. Agencies, Salem ((1989) 2 SCC 163); Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v/s. Assistant Charity Commissioner ((2004) 3 SCC 137); and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v/s. Syed Jalal ((2017) 13 SCC 174) and contended to set aside the order and allow the revision.

12. On the other hand, Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings of both sides found that the plaint discloses the cause of action and the objections raised involve disputed questions of fact. The entire case of the revision petitioners is that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, however, that contention proceeds by looking at the defence of the petitioners rather than the plaint itself.

13. It is further contended that the plaint specifically refers to aggregate payment of Rs.5,18,000/- consisting Rs.4,78,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and seeks recovery of the said amount with consequential reliefs and these are not vague or imaginary allegations. It is further contended that at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the Court is not required to decide whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed. The plaint has to be read as whole and the question is only whether the facts pleaded, if taken to be true for the limited purpose, disclose a cause of action. All these facts ultimately have to be proved by way of a trial, not a matter for rejection at the threshold. Therefore, contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly treated the alleged dissolution is a disputed question of fact.

14. Learned counsel while referring to the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, referred to supra, submitted that the respondent does not dispute the principle laid down in the judgments therein. The dispute is only with regard to the applicability of those principles to the facts of the present case. It was submitted that, although the said judgments require the plaint to be read meaningfully and as a whole, they do not permit the Court, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact raised by the defendants.

15. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no prejudice to the plaintiff if the suit is allowed to be proceeded as they will have every opportunity before the Trial Court to establish their defence including the alleged dissolution and alleged non- payment.

16. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v/s. Babulal (Civil Appeal No.3367 of 2019); Srihari Hanumandas Totala v/s. Hemant Vithal Kamat ((2021) 9 SCC 99); Popat and Kotecha Property v/s. State Bank of India Staff Association ((2005) 7 SCC 510); and D.Ramachandran v/s. R.V.Janakiraman ((1999) 3 SCC 267) and contended to dismiss the petition.

17. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

18. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff has specifically pleaded that an amount of Rs.5,18,000/- was paid towards the liability of the defendants and, on that basis, claimed recovery of the said amount along with consequential reliefs. The petitioners dispute the payment and also dispute the basis on which the payment allegedly made by the plaintiff's husband gives rise to a right in favour of the plaintiff. These contentions relate to the correctness and proof of the averments made in the plaint.

19. Here, it is relevant to extract Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as under:

               “11. Rejection of plaint.

               The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

               (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

               (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

               (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

               (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

               (e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

               (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:

               Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

20. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, the Court has to examine the plaint as a whole and proceed on the basis that the averments made therein are true for the limited purpose of deciding the application. At this stage, the Court cannot examine the defence of the defendants. The question is only whether the averments in the plaint, if taken to be correct for the purpose of the application, disclose a cause of action. The Supreme Court has consistently held that disputed questions requiring evidence cannot ordinarily be decided while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

21. In the present case, the plaint contains specific averments regarding the alleged payments, the liability of the defendants and the basis for the claim made by the plaintiff. Whether the payments were in fact made, by whom they were made and whether such payment gives the plaintiff an enforceable right against the defendants are matters which require consideration on the basis of evidence.

22. Similarly, the contention that the first defendant partnership firm stood dissolved is a disputed question of fact. The effect of such dissolution, if any, on the maintainability of the suit also requires consideration on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties. The same cannot be decided at the threshold by relying upon the defence of the defendants. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners lay down the settled principle that the plaint has to be meaningfully read as a whole; however, they do not permit the Court to conduct a trial or decide disputed questions of fact while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.

23. Therefore, this Court finds that the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage, as it discloses a cause of action and the objections raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication at trial. The learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.704 of 2023.

24. In view of the above, this Court finds no any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in revision.

25. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.