B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned Advocate for the opponents waives service of notice of Rule.

2. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. The present Civil Revision Application, filed under Section 115 of CPC by the applicants (original defendant Nos. 13 and 14), is directed against the order dated 4.9.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") below Exh. 57 in Special Civil Suit No. 474 of 2009, whereby the trial Court has rejected the said application filed by the applicants, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

4. A few germane facts as stated in the plaint by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (original plaintiffs) are that the respondent No. 4 Dineshbhai Ambalal (defendant No. 1) was the owner of the lands bearing Survey No. 228/1/2/3/4/5 admeasuring 2 Hectares 85 Are 31 Sq. mtrs., and Survey No. 224/1/2/3 admeasuring 2 Hectares 23 Are 59 Sq. mtrs. The respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 1) had executed an agreement to sell the said lands in favour of the deceased Gokulbhai Shanabhai (predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/2), deceased Dineshbhai Shanabhai (predecessor of respondent No. 2/1) and Hashumatiben Shanabhai - the respondent No. 3 (original plaintiffs) on 13.6.1995. The said agreement was also got registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sanand. According to the said plaintiffs, the time was not the essence of the contract and certain conditions as contained in the agreement had to be fulfilled by both the parties, failing which both the parties were entitled to enforce the agreement by seeking specific performance of the said agreement. It has been further stated in the plaint that the deceased Gokulbhai and Dineshbhai, who happened to be the bothers of the plaintiff No. 3 Hashumatiben, were managing the affairs of the lands, and therefore, she was not aware about the dealings of the suit lands. The said Gokulbhai expired on 6.5.2004 and Dineshbhai expired on 5.8.2007. The respondent No. 3 (plaintiff No. 3) thereafter came to know about the various sale deeds having been executed by the original owner Dineshbhai in collusion with the other defendants, and on verifying the record, she had found that the respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 1) in collusion with the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, through their power-of-attorney holder Rajnibhai Jayantibhai Patel (respondent No. 13 - original defendant No. 10) had executed two registered sale deeds bearing registration Nos. 476 and 477 on 15.4.1998 in favour of the respondent Nos. 7 to 12 (original defendant Nos. 4 to 9) i.e. Kantibhai Joitaram and others. It is also stated that the plaintiff No. 3, and her brothers Gokulbhai and Dineshbhai had neither waived their rights under the agreement in question, nor had consented for the execution of any sale deed, however, the sale deeds dated 15.4.1998 and thereafter the confirmation deed dated 23.6.2003 were executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 4 to 9. It is further stated that the said deeds being illegal and void ab initio were required to be cancelled. The plaintiffs have further stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 Dineshbhai, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs under the agreement in question, had executed another sale deed on 17.5.2004 in favour of the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 (defendant Nos. 11 and 12), which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at Sr. No. 892, however, the same was cleared by the Sub-Registrar on 7.2.2007 as per the new Sr. No. 702. Subsequently pursuant to the order passed in the Civil Suit being No. 216/1999 by the Court at Ahmedabad (Rural), the defendant Nos. 4 to 9 and the defendant Nos. 11 and 12 had executed two separate deeds of reconveyance on 17.8.2007 in favour of the defendant No. 1 Dineshbhai, which were also got registered at Sr. No. 4276 and 4278. Accordingly the defenda