Jayant Nath, J.

1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for ruining her life. It is stated that the plaintiff got married to defendant No. 1 as per the Islamic traditions on 26th January, 2012. Subsequently, it is stated that the plaintiff has been abandoned and deserted by the defendant in the cruelest and unknown fashion by way of whimsical and capricious divorce/talaqnama dated 15th February, 2012 sent to the plaintiff within 20 days of the marriage.

2. On the basis of the above, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:

a. Pass a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff that the Talaqnama dated 15.02.2012 is null and void and non-est in the eyes of law.

b. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from selling, alienating and/or creating third party right in the matrimonial home i.e. Flat No. 705, 7th floor, Saba Apartment D-3, Sector-44, Noida-201301 and also not to dispossess the plaintiff from her matrimonial home.

c. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from misusing the writings, photographs and videos of plaintiff in their possession; and the defendants be further directed to submit the same in the court.

d. Pass a decree for damages/compensation, against the defendants for ruining the life of the plaintiff (being a young girl of 24 years).

e. Award the cost of the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

f. Pass such other orders as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice.

3. By the present application, the defendants seek rejection/return of the plaint on the ground for want of sufficient court fees. It is contended that the title of the suit reads "Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for damages". It is further stated that in para 30 of the plaint, the plaintiff seeks damages to the tune of Rs. 5 crore against the defendants. It is further stated that prayer clause has been cleverly worded and it does not mention any amount of damages and only seeks decree of damages/compensation in order to overcome the objections of court fees. It is further stated that in para 32 of the plaint, the plaintiff undertakes to pay the required court fees for damages according to the relief granted to the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of the above, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that as the plaintiff has not paid ad valorem court fees of Rs. 5 Crore, the said plaint is liable to be returned/rejected on account of insufficient court fees.

5. The settled legal position is that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has jurisdiction to reject the plaint where it does not disclose any cause of action, where the relief claimed is under-valued and the valuation is not corrected within a time fixed by the Court and that the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. For the purpose of rejection of the plaint, the Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action, which requires determination, the mere fact that the plaintiff has a weak case and may not succeed would not be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the above context, reference may be had to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1828 [LQ/SC/2006/73 ;] ">AIR 2006 SC 1828 [LQ/SC/2006/73 ;] [LQ/SC/2006/73 ;] . In para 11 the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:

It is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the court, mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint.
6. Similar are the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vigneswara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. V.K. Balachandramouli & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 506.

7. Pleadings have to be considered reasonably and the real substance of the relief has to be seen. A perusal of the plaint here would show that though there are averments made in the plaint pertaining to damages suffered by the plaintiff on account of the whimsical, capricious and motivated acts of the defendants and the cruelty and atrocities inflicted upon her, on the basis of which damages are stated to have been suffered, however, the plaintiff has chosen not to claim the said damages in the relief clause. It is obvious that on account of the nature of pleadings, the plaintiff may not ultimately be able to claim damages. Reference may also be had to the judgment in the case of Chief Inspector Stamps v. Indu Prabha Vachaspati (1998)9 SCC 157 [LQ/SC/1997/992] where the Honble Supreme Court pointed out that valuation of a claim for the purpose of court fees depends on the prayer in the plaint.

8. In this case, one cannot lose sight of the fact that one of the basic reliefs sought by the plaintiff is that the talaqnama dated 15.02.2012 cannot be treated as a talaqnama and is required to be declared null and void and non-est in the eyes of law on account of various reasons mentioned in the plaint. It is not the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants that the said relief, which is the basic relief sought by the plaintiff, is barred by law. As the reliefs sought by the plaintiff have to be adjudicated upon, there is no ground to allow the present application.

9. The matter can also be looked at from another view. At best, the relief claimed by the plaintiff pertaining to damages is what, according to the defendants, is a claim which cannot be gone into by this Court. However, it is settled legal position that part of the plaint cannot be rejected. In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1559 [LQ/SC/1982/156] , the Honble Supreme Court held that where the plaint discloses no cause of action, it is obligatory on the Court to reject the plaint as a whole under Order VII Rule 11(A) CPC but the Rule does not justify rejection of any particular portion of a plaint. Hence even on this ground, the present application is liable to be rejected. In view of the above, the present application is frivolous and has no merit. The same is dismissed. However, nothing said herein may be taken as binding for the purpose of final adjudication of the suit.