Z.K. Saiyed, J.

Rule. Mr.Sanjay Dave, learned Advocate appearing with Ms.Anuja S. Nanavaty, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 waives service of rule.

2. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed below application, Exh.99, dated 2192016 in Civil Suit No.2161 of 2006 pending before the Court of the Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, whereby the application under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the Petitioners came to be rejected by the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the present controversy between the parties are summarized as under :

4. The Respondent No. 1 - Trust, claiming to be registered under the provisions of Trust Registration Act as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, preferred Civil Suit No.2161 of 2006 initially against the predecessor of the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 herein for permanent injunction restraining the original Defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Respondent No. 1 over the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 166, 181, 182, 179, 180, 185/Paiki, 207/Paiki and 208 situated at Village Odhav, Taluka-District Ahmedabad, based on a Registered Agreement To Sell dated 15-5-1986 executed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - Trust.

5. The Respondent No. 1 - Trust also filed a Notice of Motion, Exh.7, seeking interim injunction against the original Defendants and the Trial Court initially, on date 14-11-2006, passed an order of maintenance of Status Quo in respect of possession of the suit lands till the Defendants filed their Reply on date 24-11-2006 and further passed an order to appoint Court Commissioner for preparing and submitting the Report in respect of the suit lands.

6. The Court Commissioner, on date 15-11-2006, prepared a Report of the suit lands and also prepared a Map thereof, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 is in possession of only the area admeasuring 7000 sq.mt of Survey No. 182, and, therefore, both the parties filed a joint pursis before the Trial Court and the Trial Court, on date 28-3-2007, passed an order below Notice of Motion, Exh.7, on date 28-3-2007 directing the parties to act in strict compliance of the said pursis and further passed an order for maintenance of status quo in respect of the possession of the suit lands as per the Report of the Court Commissioner by both the parties.

7. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 Trust, upon death of the original Defendant No. 1 - Chandubhai Krushnarao Jadav on date 21-1- 2007, preferred an application, Exh.60, on date 12-10-2010, for joining the Petitioners as heirs and legal representatives of the Original Defendant No. 1 and the Trial Court has allowed the said application.

8. The Petitioners thereafter preferred an application, Exh. 99, on date 18-2-2016, under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on various grounds including the ground that the suit of the original Plaintiff is barred by law and the original Plaintiff - Trust does not have any cause of action to prefer the present suit on the basis of the alleged agreement to sell executed in favour of the original Plaintiff, which is clearly invalid under the law.

9. The Petitioners also preferred another application, Exh.106, on date 5-5-2016 seeking clarification in the order passed by the Trial Court below Notice of Motion on date 28-3-2007 and the Trial Court, bypassing a common order below application, Exh. 99 and application, Exh.106, on date 21-9-2016, rejected the application, Exh.99, preferred by the Petitioner under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and partly allowed the application, Exh.106, by clarifying that the status quo is required to be maintained by the parties only in respect of the possession of the Plaintiffs over the party of the suit lands admeasuri