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 as an intermediary and once such is the case, the plaintiff without impleading that Patel Engineering if necessary cannot allege any existence of cause of action that too when reply notice of the defendants referred in the plaint and also enclosed as document No.6 is very clear of denying the said allegations about the entering of any agreement and their got any title over the property and the relief is also barred by Sections 13 and 17 of the Specific Relief Act for no specific performance of the contract can be granted against a person with no title for the alleged property for not a case of any subsequent acquisition of title by the defendants much less by the date of suit. Hence, the trial court in dismissing the application on 20.09.2010 in dismissing the I.A.No.1518 of 2009 is unsustainable and is liable to be revised by setting aside the same by allowing the application.

3. Whereas, it is the submission of the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff to the revision petition that the impugned order of the lower court is a reasoned one supported by reasons merely because some other view possible even an appellate court cannot interfere within the limited scope for this Court while sitting in revision, there is nothing to interfere, hence, to dismiss the revision.

4. Heard both sides at length and perused the grounds urged, impugned order of the lower court and the petition and the counter in passing the impugned order, with no necessity of filing but for the additional document of plaint, the written statement context of the defendants.

5. As plaint averments alone are decisive in determining the plaint is liable to be rejected under any of the clauses (a) to (f) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the amended CPC of 2002. The plaint averments undisputedly alleges existence of a lengthy cause of action from bundle of alleged essential facts. What the defendants say in seeking to reject the plaint is that these are distorted versions conveniently with legal framework engineered to create a false cause of action without subsistence of a real cause of action that is criteria for the court to consider. Undisputedly, the very wording of Order VII Rule 11 clause (a) speaks that where it does not disclose a cause of action. The stress is to the word disclosure.

6. No doubt, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner that the question of disclosure arises from existence when there is no existence mere pretended existence by disclosure is not a disclosure. However, once the law clearly says plaint averments are decisive and from the plaint averments it discloses whether it is a real disclosure or pretended disclosure is premature for the court to go into though otherwise a stale claim can be rejected instead of allowing to put the or