JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. The applicants herein-original defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC” for short] challenging the order dated 21.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sanand below Exh.18 in Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 2012 whereby the application of the present applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision Application are as under:

2.1 That the original plaintiffs-respondents herein have filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 2012 in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Sanand stating that the plaintiffs and the defendants-applicants herein had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding [“MOU” for short] dated 30.6.2012 duly executed in front of the witnesses in respect of the suit lands for the sale of the same at the rate of Rs.31 Lakhs per vigha. In accordance with such execution of the MOU, the plaintiffs-respondents herein have paid Rs.32 Lakhs in cash towards the said transaction to the defendants-applicants herein. It is further alleged in the suit that as per the MOU, the plaintiffs and the defendants had to take all the necessary permissions and clear all the rights of the parties in the suit lands and thereafter execute the sale deed after getting all the necessary and relevant permissions from the revenue authorities. It is further alleged that thereafter, the plaintiffs-respondents herein came to know that there was a Town Planning Scheme in respect of the suit lands. It is further alleged that on 25.7.2012 when the plaintiffs went to meet the defendants for completing the formalities and for the execution of the sale deed in terms of the MOU, the defendants-applicants herein refused to act in terms of the MOU. It is further alleged that since the defendants-applicants herein have refused to act as per the MOU and have refused to proceed further, the present suit has been filed praying for the declaration that the plaintiffs-respondents herein have a legal right over the suit lands and the defendants-applicants herein or their agents have no right to interfere in the said suit lands. Further, by application dated 30.7.2012, the plaintiffs- respondents herein have prayed for leave of the Court for execution of the sale deed under the MOU. In the said suit, the defendants-applicants herein have also filed their written statement denying the execution of any MOU.

2.2 That in the aforesaid suit, the defendants have filed their reply denying the averments in the plaint and have also denied that they have received any sale consideration in cash and have also denied the execution of so-called MOU. It is stated in the reply that with regard to land of Revenue Survey No. 106, Khata No. 145 of village Sanand, certain talks were going on with one Shri Vikasbhai and that the defendants have never met the plaintiffs. It is also stated in the reply that with regard to said land since the title was to be verified, signatures of the defendants were taken by Shri Nareshbhai, agent of Shri Vikasbhai on blank papers and a notice dated 25.6.2012 was given in a daily newspaper. It is also submitted that such blank paper is misused and bogus agreement is created. It is also stated that the said agreement is unregistered and therefore, no suit can be instituted on the basis of the same. It is further stated that the said agreement is a forged and fabricated document as well as void agreement without consideration and the suit being declaratory suit, is not maintainable under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act.

2.3 That, thereafter, the applicants herein-defendants filed application below Exh.18 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit. That the said application below Exh.18 came to be rejected by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sanand vide impugned order dated 21.12.2014.

Aggrieved, the