D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant No.1 in OS No.593 of .2001 pending before the Court of the IX Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore [CCH No.10], is aggrieved by the order dated 9-4-2007 passed on IA No III,. an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant-petitioner in the suit praying for rejection of the plaint, which came to be dismissed.

2. It is contended, inter alia, that the learned trial Judge has committed. an error; that the trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in a proper manner; that he order is required to be set aside, application allowed and plaint rejected.

3. Notice had been issued to the respondents and the respondents have entered appearance through Counsel.

4. I have heard Smt Anuradha Urs, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jayakumar,.learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

5. It is very vehemently urged by Smt Anuradha Urs, learned Counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the very plaint averments that the plaintiff had once earlier filed a suit for a like relief, but that suit came to be dismissed as withdrawn and the plaint averment not containing a plea that it was with the permission of the Court, the second suit for the sale relief is clearly barred in view of the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1(4)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore the plaint should have been rejected at the threshold on such position having been pointed out in terms of the application filed by the Defendant No.1.

6. It is also urged that the suit itself was not tenable for the relief which was sought for in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [for short ‘the Act’] for the reason that the plaintiff could 110t have got the consequential relief of injunction in respect of an immovable property as the declaration was not in respect of the subject matter, but the declaration was only in respect of certain entries in the revenue records.

7. It is submitted that the trial Court should have also seen the lack of supporting averment for a relief under the Act which amounts to nondisclosure of cause of action in the plaint and for this reason also plaint should have been rejected.

8. The learned Judge while examining the stand of the defendant in terms of the application and which application had been opposed to by the plaintiff in the suit, formulated the question as to whether the plaint was liable to be rejected on the grounds urged by the defendant.

9. The learned Trial Judge who examined this aspect found the contention of the plaintiff that in terms of the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.31677 of 2000 and the observation contained therein in favour of the plaintiff did show or indicate a cause of action for filing the suit, found it an acceptable contention and therefore took the view that there is certain cause of action indicated in the plaint for the relief sought for.

10. The learned Trial Judge has also not accepted the argument that want of permission from the Court to withdraw the suit debars filing of a fresh suit based on the authorities on which the defendant has placed reliance as they were authorities rendered in the context of examination of causes arising under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

11. One another ground which appealed to the learned trial Judge was the relationship between the parties, namely, the plaintiff being sister of the defendant and the entire controversy being in the context of change of khata in respect of the property which stood in the name of their mother and declaration for the relief of the changes in the khata to be null and void and a consequential injunction was not as impossible as was sought to be contended by the defendant and at any rate not a sufficient ground for rejecting the plaint at the threshold.

12. The learn