The revision is maintained by the petitioners/defendants in the suit of the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 213 of 2008, pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (since stated, transferred and pending with the XIV Additional Chief Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri), though originally it was dismissed on 31.12.2012, the same was restored and pending and chief affidavit of the plaintiff stated filed and not taken on oath so far as P.W.1 chief.

2. The contentions in the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 particularly from clauses (a) & (d) of CPC are that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants to get the suit reliefs for the specific performance of the alleged oral contract for sale more particularly for the fact that the plaint nowhere specifically asserted as to how the defendants got right and title over the plaint schedule property but also from the context of the written statement of the defendants apart from what they mentioned in the application that the Patel Engineering is the owner and not the defendants in question but for if at all the allegation is in arrangement