PRAKASH GUPTA, J.

1. Under challenge is the order and decree dated 12.7.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the court rejected the plaint of the appellant-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action. Against this order and decree, the instant first appeal is filed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that registered sale deed dated 5.12.2006 be declared null and void. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellants had sold a property bearing No.340 situated at village Udaipuria, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur to the respondents vide registered sale deed dated 5.12.2006. In lieu of the said property, a consideration of Rupees 48, 30, 000 was agreed to be paid by the respondent to the plaintiff-appellants. Out of the total consideration of 48,30,000, a sum of 1 lakh rupees was paid by the respondent through a cheque and for the remaining part of the consideration, three post-dated cheques of Rupees 40,00,000, 3,65,000 and 3,65,000 were given by the respondent to the plaintiffs. These three cheques, when sought to be en-cashed by the plaintiff-appellants, were returned with endorsement of "stop payment". It is the case of the plaintiffs-appellants that the respondent, with an intention to deceive the plaintiff-appellants, issued these cheques and subsequently directed the banks to stop the payment.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC contending therein that the non-payment of consideration did not amount to deceive and since the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action, the same was liable to be rejected within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The respondent further contended that since the plaintiffs appellants had not sought the cancellation of the sale deed, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. Thus, the respondent prayed for the rejection of the plaint at the outset.

4. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties accepted the application and rejected the plaint vide the impugned order. Hence, the present first appeal is filed.

5. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants contended that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint of the plaintiffs-appellants as the case did not fall within any of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The submission of Mr. Agarwal was twofold. First, he contended that since from the intention of the parties, it was made out that payment of consideration in the instant case was a pre-requisite for completion of the sale. Since the payment of consideration by the respondent to the plaintiffs-appellants was not complete and possession also did not get transferred, the sale itself was not complete. Mr. Agarwal contended that consideration was the essence of the agreement in this case and without the payment of the same, the sale could not have been completed. Since the sale was not complete, the plaintiff-appellants could ask for declaring the sale deed null and void. In order to support his contentions, Mr. Agarwal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaliperumal Vs. Rajgopal and Another, (2009) 4 SCC 193 and Janak Dulari Devi and Another Vs. Kapildeo Rao and Another, (2011) 6 SCC 555. The second submission of Mr. R.K. Agarwal was that promising to pay consideration and then directing the banks to stop the payment by the respondents showed mischief on their part and an intention to deceive the plaintiffs-appellants. Refusing to pay the balance consideration with an intention to deceive would come within the ambit of "fraud" and hence, the plaint did disclose a cause of action. In support of his arguments, Mr. Agarwal relied on the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in Rajendra Prakash Vs. Babita Gupta, (2000) 40 AllLR 196 and Gujrat High C