(This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the Order dated 25.08.2009 passed in O.S.No. 15734/2005 on the file of the XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, (CCH 22), dismissing the application filed under order 7 Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure.)

This is a defendants’ revision petition questioning the correctness of the order passed by the XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 25.8.2009 in O.S.No. 15734/2005 whereunder interlocutory application filed by the revision petitioners (defendants) under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be dismissed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before Civil Court. The facts in nut shell are as follows:

2.1 Plaintiffs sought for an order of perpetual injunction against the defendants, their men, agents, representatives, henchmen in O.S.No. 15734/2005. The said suit was contested by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Pro9cedure came to be filed by the defendants with a prayer to reject the plaint as same is barred by law. The said application was supported by an affidavit of 4th defendant. It was contended in the said affidavit that in respect of suit schedule property the defendants’ father had taken 15 guntas of agricultural land on tenancy basis from Kolad mutt Mahasamstanam during 1d965 and during his life time he was cultivating the land by giving half share to the mutt. It was also contended that father of the plaintiff slate G.Khaleel had filed an application for registration of occupancy rights before land Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 19-4-1989 had ordered late G.Khaleel to be registered as occupant of the Schedule property. The said order came to be set aside by this Court in W.P.No.25423/1993 by order dated 19.9.2001 and same came to be set aside at the instance of the mutt and was remitted back to the Land Tribunal. The matter is being adjudicated by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams as the land was a Devadaya land and during pendency of adjudication before Tribunal, above said G.Khaleel expired on 17-7-2004 and his legal heirs were prosecuting the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner.

2.2. It was contended by the Defendants that when the mater was pending before the Tribunal, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit to deprive the rights of the defendants. It was also contended that suit schedule property was in joint possession of both plaintiffs and defendants and the defendants have already got impleaded themselves before the Tribunal and as such the plea regarding joint tenancy has to be referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961. Hence it was contended that the suit was not maintainable and barred by law.

2.3. The said application came to be resisted by the plaintiffs and it was contended that defendants cannot be permitted to preempt the trial by means of the present application, particularly when evidence has already been recorded in the main suit. It was also contended to avoid adjudication of the matter the application is filed to harass the plaintiffs and to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs.

2.4. On the basis of the rival contentions the trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected; as barred by law?

2. What order?

2.5. After considering the arguments of respective advocates, the Court below by its order dated 25-8-2009, dismissed the application. It is this order which is questio0ned by the defendants in this Revision Petition.

3. I have heard Sri.Subramanya appearing on behalf of Upasana Associates and Sri.R.I.D’Sa learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs.

4. Sri.Subramanya would contend that all the defendants have impleaded themselves before the Special Deputy Commissioner, by order da