1. Petitioners-defendants in O.S.No.111 of 2006 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery made an attempt to nip the suit against them in the bud by taking recourse to Rule 11(a) and (d) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) Learned Sub Judge nipped that attempt in the bud. Hence, this civil revision.

2. The parties are closely related-by blood and/or bond-first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. Second petitioner is the daughter of respondent. Third petitioner is said to be private limited company of which petitioners 1 and 2 are the directors. Respondent, who claimed to be a person of Indian origin settled and living in the United States of America, a medical practitioner by profession claimed to have advanced certain amount to the first petitioner from his NRI account for acquisition of the suit property and claimed reliefs against petitioners such as, a declaration that petitioners hold the suit property in trust for and on behalf of the respondent, a consequential perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining petitioners, their agents or men from alienating, transferring or parting with the suit property wholly or in portions, from creating any charge or mortgage and from creating documents with respect to the suit property or any portion thereof, from selling, cutting or removing timber therefrom and from committing act of waste therein, a consequential mandatory injunction directing petitioners to take such steps as are legally necessary to bring in and incorporate respondent as a share holder and director of the third petitioner, the company with 90% of shares in it and its assets with the share of petitioners 1 and 2 being limited to 5% each failing which, to have the Court be pleased to act on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2 and take such lawful steps as are necessary to effectuate the said relief in favour of the respondent. Along with the plaint, respondent produced certain documents which included copy of the assignment deed executed by Van Ingen, a foreign national in favour of the third petitioner, company and two letters allegedly sent by the first petitioner to the respondent. The plaint was registered and summons was issued to the petitioners who appeared and filed I.A.No.747 of 2006 under rule 11 of Order VII of the Code contending that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and at any rate, the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law. Reference was made on behalf of the petitioners to the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short “the FEMA”) and the Regulations framed thereunder to contend that respondent being a Non Resident India (for short, “NRI”) is debarred either, from acquiring any plantation or agricultural land or, investing any amount in a company engaged in the business of the nature referred to in the relevant Regulations. It was contended that in the circumstance, none of the reliefs sought by the respondent could be granted and as such, the suit itself is barred. It was also contended that in the view of that, respondent had no cause of action against petitioners to sustain the suit. Learned Sub Judge held the plaint cannot be rejected as requested for in I.A.No.747 of 2006. Learned Sub Judge while holding that the plaint did disclose a cause of action has also taken the view that even if it is ultimately to be held that respondent is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, that does not mean that the suit is not maintainable.

3. Learned Senior Advocates, Sri.V.Chitambaresh and Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer in their own inimitable style has addressed arguments at length on the various points canvassed by them. Learned Senior Advocate, Sri.V.Chitambaresh has referred me to the scope and ambit of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code and contended that an Activist Judge is the answer to frivolous suits-he is required to lift the veil created artistic pleadings in the plain