(ii) The object of the said provision was laid down by this Court
in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
(2004) 3 SCC 137. Similarly, in Popat and Kotecha Property vs.
State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, this
Court has culled out the legal ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code.
(iii) It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be
considered, but the whole plaint has to be read. As was
observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi vs. Nachhattar Singh
Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487, only a part of the plaint cannot be
rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a
whole must be rejected. Similarly, in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd.
vs. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184, it was observed that
the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find
out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 Order VII of the Code is
applicable.