The main legal point established is the importance of raising objections under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. before resorting to Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the significance of addressing factual and legal pleas before the trial court.

1. The petitioner/first defendant has preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition, praying for issuance of an order by this Court to call for the records pertaining to the impugned plaint filed by the respondent in O.S.No. 322 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu and struck off the same.

2.It comes to be known that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No. 322 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, as against the revision petitioner/first defendant and other three defendants, praying for passing of a preliminary decree in cancelling the alleged deed of power fraudulently obtained by the first defendant in collusion with the fourth respondent by forging the plaintiff signatures purported to be a power of attorney deed in favour of the second defendant, dated 28.01.1997, bearing document No. 25/97; to cancel the impugned sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, dated 07.09.1997 bearing document No. 3288/1997; and to cancel the impugned sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, dated 14.01.1999 bearing document No. 3120/1999.

3.It transpires that on behalf of the second and third defendants, written statements have been filed before the trial Court. Also, in the main suit, issues were framed and on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, proof affidavit has been filed by PW-1. The stage is now set for cross-examination of PW-1. In the main suit, the petitioner/first defendant has remained ex-pate. The third defendant, viz., M/s.Mahindra Industrial Park Ltd., Chennai – 002, is contesting the main suit. In the main suit, PW-1 is to be cross examined and the matter stands adjourned to 10.06.2013 before the trial Court.

4.As seen from the memorandum of grounds, it is evident that a plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioner/first defendant that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, failed to take into account, the law governing the subject matter of the suit to entertain the plaint in O.S.No. 322 of 2010 (filed by the respondent/plaintiff) as it was barred by the law of limitation. In this regard, the petitioner/first defendant has adverted to the Section 17 of the Contract Act 1872 which refers to "Effect of Fraud or Mistake".

5. Apart from the above, it is the case of the Revision petitioner/ 1st defendant that in the present suit before the trial Court the third defendant was not a party to the alleged fraud and did not at the time of the purchase knew or had reason to believe that the alleged fraud had been committed.

6.In the revisional grounds, it is the stand of the petitioner/first defendant that the suit property was sold out to the third defendant during the year 1997 and 1999 and the same was resold to some other person and that, the respondent was not in possession of the suit property.

7.Added further, a categorical stand taken on behalf of the petitioner/first defendant is that the plaint in O.S.No. 322 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court is barred by law oflimitation, viz, by operation of Article 56 of the Limitation Act 1963.

8.Admittedly, the petitioner/first defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court on 15.02.2011. The impugned plaint in O.S.No. 322 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court has been filed during December 2010. As on date, the trial of the main suit has commenced.

9.It is to be pointed out that the real aim of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits. Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C., is a weapon in the hands of a Court of Law to effectuate the objection behind Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

10. It is to be noted that under Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C., there is a requirement of inclusion of cause of action. Ordinarily, a Court of law is to presume that every allegation in the plaint is true. As a matter of fact, when the plaint raises arguable points w