A plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) only if it fails to disclose a valid cause of action, especially in light of established precedent.

ORDER :

1. This revision petition is against the order dated 24^th April 2005 passed in OS No.467 of 2009 by the III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Dharwad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to this revision petition are that, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been in possession of the Suit property under agreement of sale, dated 28^th August, 1974 and puravani dated 30^th September, 1974. On the basis of said agreement for sale, plaintiff filed suit OS No.51 of 1997 for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 20^th August, 1974 and puravani dated 30^th September, 1974. The matter was heard on merits and suit was partly decreed, directing the Executor of agreement for sale to refund the earnest money with interest at 6% per annum. Against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.51 of 1997, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in RA No.111 of 2003, and the said appeal also came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the judgment and decree passed in RA No.111 of 2003, Plaintiff filed second appeal before this Court in RSA No.1186 of 2008 before this Court and the said Regular Second Appeal came to be disposed of on 21^st July, 2022 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29^th November, 2007 passed in RA No.111 of 2003 which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13^th March 2003 passed by the trial Court in OS No.51 of 1997. The Judgment passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1186 of 2008 was challenged by the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.27068 of 2023, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22^nd September, 2023.

4. Thereafter, plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of sale of immovable property and has failed to obtain the decree of specific performance. Later, he cannot protect his alleged possession on the ground of part performance under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The very contention taken by the plaintiff in the suit goes to show that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. It is further stated that the cause of action shown in the plaint that defendant tried to disposes the plaintiff from the suit property, do not give any cause of action to the plaintiff to file the present suit. If the plaintiff had not filed suit in OS No.51 of 1997 for specific performance of agreement for sale against the defendant and if the plaintiff continued in alleged possession of property under the agreement for sale dated 28^th August 1974, and puravani dated 30^th September, 1974, under such circumstance, plaintiff can seek for protection of his alleged possession of the suit property under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plaintiff had or has to file a suit for permanent injection basing his position under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. On these grounds, defendant No.3 has filed IA under Order VII Rules 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. The same was rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

5. Respondent appeared before this Court and filed statement of objections in which it is stated that the present revision petition is not maintainable in law and on facts and circumstances of the case and as such, the same has to be dismissed in limine. It is further contented that the present petition is also untenable in law as the revision petitioner has not disclosed the true facts of the case and she has suppressed the material facts on record and she has not approached this Court with clean hands and on this acc