JUDGMENT :

These two Civil Revision Applications are filed by some of the original defendants against common order dated 01/07/2019, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhandara, whereby two applications filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Exhs.83 and 101), were rejected.

2. The respondent No.1 in both the Revision Applications (original plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction bearing Special Civil Suit No.3/2019, before the Court below against the revision applicants in these two Revision Applications and other defendants totaling 29 defendants. The suit properties are agricultural lands in respect of which the respondent No.1 claims to have entered into an agreement for sale and purchase. It is the case of respondent No.1 that an agreement dated 30/06/2016, was executed by original defendant Nos. 3,10, 11 and 19 in favour of respondent No.1, agreeing to sell the property for valuable consideration. It was claimed by respondent No.1 that earnest money of Rs.11,00,000/- by way of four cheques was paid by him to the said original defendant Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 19 and that the agreement was specifically signed only by the said four defendants only. It was the case of respondent No.1 that in stead of complying with the requirements of the said agreement, original defendant Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 19 sold the property to a third person, thereby cheating the respondent No.1, despite the fact that the respondent No.1 was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On this basis, the respondent No.1 has filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.

3. In the aforesaid suit, the revision applicants filed Applications at Exhs.83 and 101, seeking rejection of the plaint as against them, primarily on the ground that even as per the pleadings of the respondent No.1 and agreement dated 30/06/2016, revision applicants were not even parties to the agreement and, therefore, there was no question of the suit for specific performance proceeding against them. These Applications were opposed on behalf of respondent No.1.

4. On 01/07/2019, the Court below passed the impugned order, wherein it found that when the suit property was ancestral property and defendant Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 19 had executed the said agreement dated 30/06/2019, without consent of the revision applicants and when they were not even signatories to the agreement, it was clearly not enforceable against the revision applicants. The Court below found that it was a practice of fraud by defendant Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 19, as there was no consent given by the revision applicants for entering into the said agreement and it was also found that respondent No.1 could not be said to have any cause of action against the revision applicants herein.

5. Yet, in the impugned order, the Court below found that the applications for rejection of plaint filed by the revision applicants could not be allowed because rejection of the plaint in piecemeal could not be permitted and since the plaint could be rejected only as a whole, the applications filed by the revision applicants could not be granted.

6. Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts to contend that the approach adopted by the Court below while passing the impugned order is not sustainable. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicants has fairly placed before this Court judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that appear to approve the approach of the Court below in holding that the plaint could not be rejected in piecemeal, but, it is contended that such judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been passed without referring to or explaining an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman Vs. Pon