JUDGMENT :

A.P. Thaker, J.

1. All these three Civil Revision Applications have arisen out the common order passed by the learned Chamber Judge, Court No. 27, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad below Exh-18, 21 and 22 in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2018, whereby the applications filed by the respective applicants herein for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, came to be dismissed.

2. So far as CRA No. 227 of 2019 is concerned, the applicant is the original defendant no. 6 whereas in CRA No. 231 of 2019, the applicants are present defendant nos. 4 and 5 and in CRA No. 235 of 2019 the applicants are defendant nos. 1 to 3.

3. The contents of the application are similar and therefore the CRA No. 227 of 2019 is treated as lead matter.

4. For the brevity and convenience the parties are referred to in this matter is as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

5. The application at Exh-18 was preferred by defendant nos. 1 to 3 and Exh-21 was filed by defendant no. 6 whereas Exh-24 was filed by defendant nos. 4 and 5 seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

6. The sum and substance of respective application filed by the defendants is that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit and, therefore, they have requested to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. It is also contended by the defendants that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have a right to file suit against the defendants and has not disclosed any cause of action against the respective defendants and the plaint does not contain material fact to constitute the cause of action. It is also contended that in the plaint that the defendant no. 1 has misbehaved with son Ridham Shah of plaintiff no. 1. It is also alleged that defendant no. 1 had attempted to unsettle marriage life of Ridham Shah however Ridham Shah is not joined as party to the present suit though he is a necessary and proper party to adjudicate the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 3. According to them, Ridham Shah and plaintiffs are different persons and rights in favour of Ridham Shah cannot be equated with rights of the plaintiffs. It is also contended that plaintiffs have not pleaded how the plaintiffs have suffered the alleged loss of Rs. 50,00,000/- and such claim of the plaintiffs is imaginary and baseless. So far as defendant nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, they have stated that the allegation made against them are baseless whereas defendant nos. 4 to 6 have contended that they are neighbours of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 3 and they have been falsely implicated in the matter.

7. After perusal of the material on record, the learned trial Court has passed impugned order and dismissed all the applications filed by the respective applicants.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the respective defendants have filed separate revision applications mainly on the ground that the contention of the defendants regarding no cause of action has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. According to them, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to indicate the cause of action which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to get the relief as prayed. It is also contended that the trial Court has mechanically read the plaint and have not read it meaningful. It is also contended that the averments in Para-12 to the effect that due to alleged harassment of defendants to the family of the plaintiffs for last 2 years, personal life of plaintiff no. 2 and Ridham Shah is spoiled, has been mechanically believed by the trial Court. It is also contended that when the plaint is devoid of cause of action which is necessary to adjudicate the matter, the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications. It is also contended that the reliance placed by the learned trial Court on the decisions of Apex Court in case of Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal,