1. Since both these proceedings raise challenge to the order dated 01/08/2017 passed below Exhibit-50 in R.C.S. No.4990/2012 allowing the application that was filed under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) and permitting the plaintiff to seek appropriate relief and pay necessary court fees within a period of fifteen days, they are being decided together.

Civil Revision Application No.124/2017 is accordingly Admitted and Rule is issued in Writ Petition No.4508/2018. Respective counsel waive notice of hearing.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the petitioner in W.P.No.4508/2018 is the original plaintiff. It is his case that he deals in sale and purchase of immovable properties. The plaintiff came in contact with the defendant No.3 who was a financial broker. Said defendant No.3 agreed to give a hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest to the plaintiff. Certain documents were executed by the plaintiff towards security of the loan amount. Subsequently, the plaintiff was in further need of amounts and he approached the defendant No.1 who agreed to give him a hand loan of Rs.22,00,000/- on the condition that the plaintiff should execute a saledeed of an immovable property in his name towards security for repayment of the loan. The defendant No.4 approached the plaintiff and expressed his desire to sell various plots as described in the Schedule to the plaint. Said defendant No.4 was having an agreement dated 24/03/2011 in his favour. After negotiations the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said plots at the rate of Rs.1950 per sq. ft. The plaintiff thereafter approached the defendant No.1 as the plaintiff was not having sufficient funds to complete the said transaction. However the defendant No.3 who was also contacted agreed to give a hand loan of Rs.1.5 crore to the plaintiff with a condition that the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.22,00,000/- given to the plaintiff earlier would be deducted alongwith the interest. On that basis the plaintiff entered into an agreement on 15/06/2012. As agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the saledeed of plot No.23A and 24 was executed in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 27/06/2012. The saledeed of plot Nos.25 to 29, 34 and 34A was executed jointly in the name of the plaintiff as well as defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he was in exclusive possession of the entire suit property and the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were mentioned in the saledeed only as security for repayment of the hand loan. The plaintiff thereafter started construction of his office building and compound wall. In meanwhile he also purchased plot No.9A which was an adjoining plot. It is then the case of the plaintiff that on 24/11/2012 the defendant Nos.3 to 5 along with some unknown persons entered the suit property and gave threats to the plaintiff to repay the balance amount due to defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff lodged a police report. Suit was accordingly filed seeking a declaration that the act on the part of defendant Nos.3 to 5 of entering the suit property on 24/11/2012 and interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession was illegal. A decree for perpetual injunction was also sought seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

3. In the said suit the defendant No.2 filed an application under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the Code read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, the Act of 1963). As per that application it was urged that the plaintiff had admitted execution of the saledeeds in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. However without seeking any declaration with regard to the actual nature of said transaction, the suit was not maintainable in the light of provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1963. According to defendant No.2 it was necessary for the plaintiff to have