Order VI Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly stipulates that the pleadings should contain the material facts. It has been observed by the Supreme  Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others [MANU/SC/0071/2004 : (2004) 3 SCC 137] that omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad.

It will be great if you elaborate the subject properly so could provide you guidance on your query. Just asking for citation will not help.

Apex Court rendered in I.T.C. Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Others [MANU/SC/0968/1998 : (1998) 2 SCC 70]. In its aforesaid decision the Apex Court has held that the power of rejection of the plaint can be exercised even after framing of issues and matter is posted for evidence and has further held that it was incumbent upon the concerned court to look into the matter as to whether real cause of action has been set out or something illusionary has been stated with a view to get out the Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

the reading of plaint for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be meaningful reading and not only the formal reading of the same. If real cause of action has not been set out in the plaint rather something illusionary has been stated with a view to get out the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such clever drafting and suppression of material facts are not permitted in law and hence such action should be nipped at the bud. Similar view has been taken by learned single Judge of this Court in Vikash Singh & Anr. vs. Sri Krishna Prasad Sinha and Others (C.R. No. 1044 of 2006) disposed of on 27.9.200

A plaint can be filed by a party and you have to reply to it by stating that the cause of action does not exist. A court cannot dismiss a plaint without hearing the other side....howsoever ridiculous the claim may be. One cannot cite judgements and argue that the case be dismissed.

Regards 

The circumstances for rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 cannot be regarded as an exhaustive one. In the case of Radakishen v. Wali Mohammed[1], the Court opined that for rejection of plaint on any other ground other than the one specified under Order 7 Rule 11, the defect should be such that it effects the Court’s jurisdiction.

Too many judgement are available of HCs and SC where rejection application allowed that the plaint does not disclose cause of action.

Law is well settled that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the Court has to taken into consideration only the averments in the plaint.

Deceiving the court by deliberating suppressing a fact or giving false facts may be punishable as contempt. In such cases, the court has extensive alternate power to prevent abuse of its process by striking out or staying the proceedings or by prohibiting taking of the further proceedings without leave.

There is a settled law of Calcutta high court:

You may refer to Samar Singh Vs. Kedarnath @ KN Singh decided by supreme court on 28.07/1987

1. As per the information mentioned in the present query, makes it clear that you are looking for some SC case law or South India HC which I would be surely going to look for.
2. But before that I would like to mention that yes, you can very well file rejection of plaint as per Order 7 of CPC.