The power to reject the plaint should be exercised only in clear cases, and any serious question should be determined through further proceedings. A clear cause of action should be shown in the plaint, and the principles regarding the payment of amounts covered by bank guarantee or irrevocable Letters of Credit were emphasized.

The revision petitioner/ petitioner/second defendant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 26. 2008 in I.A.No.66 of 2008 in O.S.No.6246 of 2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track No.IV) Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/second defendant to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w 151 CPC.

2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.66 of 2007 in O.S.No.6246 of 2006 has inter alia opined that as per Clause 2 of the agreement, presumption as an agent, he cannot be compelled to disclose the original owner and he had got a every right to raise a cause of action on an agreement Ex A1 against the first defendant thereby the contention of the petitioner stating that non-disclosure of the original owner of bad in law and will not create any cause of action is not sustainable, now second defendant is in the possession of the property. The Ex A1 is the document created a cause of action and resultantly has dismissed the application.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant, the trial Court has failed to note that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant or the former owner of the suit property and in the absence of cause of action against the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant , the plaint has to be rejected as against the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant and there is no pleading or evidence to show that the sale agreement of plaintiff with the first defendant is binding upon the erstwhile owner of the suit property or the revision petitioner herein and this aspect has not been looked into proper prospective by the trial Court and further that the trial Court has committed an error in placing reliance upon Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, when no such case has been made out or pleaded by the plaintiff and further the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff claims independent title to the suit property, adverse to the title of the first defendant and therefore the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant is not bound by the agreement entered into by the first defendant and that the suit is barred by limitation as against the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant , since three years from the date of agreement has lapsed and therefore, prays for allowing this revision in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2/caveators /plaintiffs submits that the cause of action for maintaining the suit has already been mentioned in the plaint and that the revision petitioner/second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser and that the contentions that the agreement is vague, the suit claim being barred by limitation etc are necessarily to be gone into and to determine only at the time of trial of the case based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties and that the trial Court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the application and the same need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in revision.

5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advance by the learned counsel on both sides and notices their contentions.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that the respondents 1 and 2 /plaintiffs cannot press into service, the Sections 226 and 230 of the Indian Contract Act in the absence of pleading and that a reading of the plaint shows that no cause of action has been made out against the revision petitioner/second defendant and there is also no pleading in the plaint that the revision petitioner/second defendant is bound by the agreement and further that there is no pleading that the first defendant is an agent of the owner and therefore the trial Court ought to have allowed I.A