ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned I Additional District Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, in I.A. No. 49 of 2015 in O.S. No. 3 of 2015 dated 03.07.2015, wherein and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/ defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’) and refused to reject the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The case of the petitioners/defendants before the trial Court in brief is that respondent filed suit against them for specific performance of contract of sale in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 11.05.2007 with false allegations and the suit is not maintainable. It is the contention of the petitioners that first petitioner is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and respondent/plaintiff filed petition before Lok Adalat, Machilipatnam, vide PLC No. 301 of 2008, wherein they received notice and then himself, third petitioner and respondent/plaintiff have arrived at compromise and accordingly, Lok Adalat Bench at Machilipatnam passed an Award on 31.10.2008. They alleged that as per Condition No. 4 of the Award, respondent/plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) to the first petitioner towards the balance sale consideration on or before 05.12.2008 in cash and then he has to execute registered sale deed in favour of the respondent and then first petitioner has to handover possession of item No. 1 of plaint schedule to the respondent on or before 05.12.2008. The main contention of the petitioners is that respondent failed to comply Condition No. 4 of the Award and failed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- on or before 05.12.2008 to the first petitioner and thereafter, a joint memo filed before Lok Adalat Bench, Machilipatnam, on 06.12.2008 stating that “respondent herein failed to do registration of petitioners property i.e. plaint schedule property on or before 05.12.2008, because of that reason, the respondent herein has no right to ask to return the amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- towards advance amount and hence, the first petitioner herein has the right to sell away his property (item No. 1 and 2) to anybody.” They have stated that once Lok Adalat has passed an Award, respondent has no right to file any suit for relief of specific performance, which was filed by the respondent with an evil intention to get money and to harass them. They pray to reject the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter before the trial Court denying the averments made in the affidavit of the first petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that after disposal of P.L.C. No. 301 of 2008 on 31.10.2008, first petitioner has represented to her that he would obtain permission from competent Court to sell the property of minors, but first petitioner failed to get any permission inspite of repeated demands made by her and then she issued notice to the petitioners and filed the suit. She submits that document dated 06.12.2008, which is a joint memo, is not a genuine document and validity and legality of the said document has to be decided in the main suit during the course of trial and there are no grounds to reject the plaint. She prays to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would mainly submit that there is no cause of action to file a fresh suit. Plaint filed by the respondent shall be rejected as per Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He would further submit that once Lok Adalat passed an Award at the instance of both parties, there is no scope for any further litigation and the suit filed by the respondent seeking similar relief, which was already granted by passing an award in the Lok Adalat at Machilipatnam, is not at all maintainable. He argued that the respondent/ plaintiff not challenged the awa