The entire averments made in the plaint as a whole should be considered to determine the cause of action, and the legal provisions under the Specific Relief Act do not bar a suit when fraud is alleged.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The defendants in O.S. No. 69 of 1999 in I.A. No. 63 of 1999 are the petitioners in this revision petition. The respondent is the plaintiff. The present revision petition has been filed as against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai made in I.A. No. 279 of 1999 in I.A. No. 63 of 1999 in O.S. No. 69 of 1999. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The plaintiff State Bank of India, Arasaradi Branch, Madurai represented by its Branch Manager filed a suit against the defendants for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienation/selling the scheduled properties or to create any charge over the same. Pending the suit, the plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 63 of 1999 seeking for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties.

3. The defendants filed I.A. No. 279 of 1999 for a direction under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint filed in O.S. No. 69 of 1999 as not maintainable. By filing a common counter, the defendants also prayed for vacation of the order of ad interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in I.A. No. 63 of 1999 dated 21-1-99.

4. Both these applications were heard together by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. By order dated 20-9-99, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendants in I.A. No. 279 of 1999 seeking for a direction to reject the plaint filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. The learned Judge by the very same order also made the injunction granted on 21-1-99 absolute. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. No. 279 of 1999 dated 20-9-99 the defendants have preferred the present revision petition.

5. Mr. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following points :-

(i) There is no cause of action as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint to maintain the suit and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected;

(ii) In view of legal bar under Section 38 read with Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable; and

(iii) Non-disclosure of materials in the plaint to show a definite cause of action shall disentitle the plaintiff to pursue the suit and therefore the plaint itself is liable to be rejected.

6. Insofar as the first contention, the learned counsel would draw my attention to paragraph 9 of the plaint which reads as follows :-

"The plaintiff is waiting for the ultimate report of the CBI, the investigating agency for fuller information, details and particulars of the fraudulent activities of the defendants mentioned above for the purpose of taking the necessary civil action for the recoveries of monies misappropriated by the 1st defendant as stated in the abovesaid manner; on a rough calculation, nearly a sum of Rs. 3 crores of the plaintiff have been swindled in the above manner. There are very strong grounds and evidence against the defendants 1 and 2 about their unlawful and illegal acts as contended."

The learned counsel would contend that for maintaining the suit, all that has been pleaded by the plaintiff for cause of action is the ultimate report of the CBI. Therefore, on the date when the suit was filed, there was no cause of action actually in existence for the plaintiff to seek for a judgment and decree and injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, selling the scheduled properties or to create any charge over the same. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the suit filed without any cause of action is liable to be rejected and the learned Subordinate Judge has erroneously rejected the request of the petitioners/defendants to reject the plaint filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. without properly appreciating the above contention. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is liable to be rejected and consequently a directi