An application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w section 151 of CPC

That the plaintiff has filed this suit purportedly for Declaration
of the property to the joint name of the Plaintiff and the
defendant.

That primarily the allegations of the plaintiff is that the father of

the plaintiff-Late Sivaji Sen, Director of M/S PEC Boilers(Pvt)Ltd
was the original tenant and he undertook before hs untimely
death to vacate the suit premises by the year 2003.

That it is the further case of the plaintiff that as the original

tenant having not extended the tenancy before his death, the
said tenancy comes to end with his death on ……….

That it s the further case of the plaintiff that the rate of rent of
the suit premises having been more that Rs 6500/-, he is not
eligible for protection under West Bengal Premises of Tenancy
Act and he is liable to be evicted under the provision of section
106 of Transfer of Property Act.

That the plaintiff has further contended that he has already

sent a notice determining the tenancy u/s 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act and hence the instant suit has been filed under
the provisions of Transfer of Property Act.

That the plaintiff on the other hand has categorically contended

in his pleading vide paragraph no.11 that the defendant is not a
tenant. The relevant portion of the pleading has been
reproduced here as follows- “ That the defendant hs left the
said premises and has been residing elsewhere and in all
material times the portion of the said tenancy is lying vacant
thereby he has no legal right to occupy the premises and cause
inconvenience to the plaintiff. More so, at no point of time the
defendant asked the plaintiff to transfer the tenancy in his
name and nor he has paid or tendered full amount of rent
thereby there is no landlord-tenancy relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant is thereby occupying
the suit premises in an unlawful manner.’’

That the plaintiff has also stated in his pleading that the
defendant is illegally occupying the suit premises as a
trespasser. Therefore according to the plaintiff the defendant is
a trespasser.

That on the basis of the unequivocal contention of the plaintiff

that the defendant s not a tenant at all and there is no
relationship of landlord and the tenant, this suit has got no legs
to stand.

That the plaintiff having conceded the defendant as not a

tenant, rather a trespasser, the present sut for eviction of the
defendant under the Provision of Transfer of Property Act is
totally barred by law.

That because of this contention the present suit for eviction of

the defendant does not disclose any cause of action.

That on the bare perusal of the pleading of the plaintiff it

becomes quite clear that the plaintiff does not consider the
defendant as a tenant and on the contrary he has clearly
contended that such relationship is absolutely absent between
the parties herein. According to the plaintiff the defendant is
rather a trespasser.

That if that being the case of the plaintiff then the present suit
under the provision of the Transfer of Puppetry Act can not
surely be maintainable as having not only barred by law but
also having disclosing no cause of action to sue the defendant
under the provision of the Transfer of Property Act.

That it is the established principle of law that while considering

the question of rejection of plaint, the court needs to peruse the
plaint only and on bare perusal t becomes quite clear that the
plaint does not disclose any cause of action ro is barred by law
then the court need not look into any other document and the
suit should be nipped in the bud.

That while considering this aspect the court should be careful to

look beyond the clever drafting and see on the root of the case
as to whether the plaintiff has any cause of action or not. The
provision of rejection of plaint has been enacted to discourage
the litigants from flooding the courts with frivolous and
vexatious claims. Whenever the court even on its own motion
finds a suit to be deficient in having a cause of action, such suit
should be rejected so that there is no more any abuse of the
process of the court.

That the court can reject a plaint at any stage of proceeding if it

is satisfied that the conditions of the provision is satisfied.
Clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action are not
permitted in law and a clear right to sue must be shown in the
plaint. Moreover, the power under order 7 rule 11 is not
exhaustive and the court has got inherent powers to see that
the vexatious litigations are not allowed to take or consume the
 time of the court. It is needless to submit that the provision for
rejection of plaint is mandatory and the court is bound to act if
the plaint is found to be lacking in cause of action or debarred
to proceed ahead by any provision of law.

That if that being the position in law then in the context of

pleading of the plaintiff this suit can not be allowed to proceed
ahead and the plaint should be rejected having disclosing no
cause of action to sue under the provision of Transfer of
Property Act.

That the present petition s bona fide and for ends of justice.

That the petitioner would be prejudiced if the prayer for

rejection of plaint is rejected. For ends of justice this petition be
allowed.
In the circumstances mentioned above it is therefore be prayed that
your honour be pleased to reject the plaint as provided for under
the provision of order 7 rule 11 of cpc. And to pass such other order
as deemed fit and proper.

AFFIDAVIT

I Sri …………s/o …………………., aged about XX years , by faith hindu,

by profession – business , resident of …………………………, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as follows:-

That I am the plaintiff of this case and as such I am fully

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the same.

That the statements mentioned above are true to my

knowledge and belief.
Deponent

Identified by me

Advocate