The Court can reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure only if it does not disclose a cause of action.

The above revision is filed by the eleventh defendant in the suit in O.S.No.98 of 2009 against the order refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit praying for a decree that

(i) Nine mortgage deeds executed by the plaintiffs and their father in favour of the defendants 1 to 10 and one Venugopal Iyer, father of the defendants 2, 3 and 9 and Jayalakshmi wife of the third defendant for a sum of Rs.13 lakhs had been discharged

(ii) Consequentially, directing the defendant to hand over possession of the suit property and the original mortgage deeds with endorsement of discharge.

(iii) For cancellation of the sale certificate issued to one P.E.Ramakrishnan, husband of the eleventh defendant in E.P.No.141 of 1981 in O.S.No.717 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindigul.

(iv) For a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the fourteenth defendant is void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 14 from alienating the suit properties.

3. The above suit was transferred to the Additional District Court (Fast Track), Dindigul. The defendant has yet filed the written statement even after a lapse of 4 years. The eleventh defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.445 of 2009 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint from the file of the trial Court. The said application was dismissed on 22/2/2010. Aggrieved by the same, the eleventh defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

4. According to the eleventh defendant, who is the revision petitioner, there is no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiffs have suppressed the earlier proceedings before the Court and filed the present suit. The petitioner obtained a decree for certain amount against the respondents' father and in execution of the decree, the property of the respondent was proceeded with. The eleventh defendant's husband had purchased the suit property in Court auction on 3/7/1984 in O.S.No.717 of 1978. In the said suit, the present plaintiffs and their parents were parties. It was taken up on revision in C.R.P. Nos.3271 and 3276 of 1984. Pending revision, the plaintiffs' father Ramamurthy died and hence, the present plaintiffs had entered into a compromise with the revision petitioner's husband and allowed the Civil Revision Petitions to be dismissed as withdrawn on 19/9/1985.

5. In the above circumstances, according to the revision petitioner, finality has been reached in O.S.No.717 of 1978 even 28 years ago. As such, the present suit is only a re-litigation and it has to be rejected. The petitioner also had raised objections regarding the payment of Court fees. Hence, the petitioner had contended that the suit is barred by res judicata and there is no cause of action and that the Court fee paid was incorrect.

6. On all the above grounds, the petitioner has sought for rejection of the plaint.

7. The said application was resisted by the respondents contending inter alia that the petition itself is vexatious and frivolous one. There are several causes of action for the suit more particularly, when O.S.No.717 of 1978 was filed and pursuant to the same, E.P.No.141 of 1981 was filed for bringing the property for sale which would give rise to the cause of action. The first defendant and the members of the family are colluding together and created an unenforceable partnership deed. The Court auction purchaser, who is the husband of the eleventh defendant was allegedly said to have retired from the partnership and the partnership was reconstituted.

8. It was also contended that the said Ramakrishnan, the Court auction purchaser, though claimed to have taken only the first lot in the Court auction on 11/1/1984, he had claimed to have purchased the entire property as set out in the Execution Petition. Thus, the property was purchased in the Court auction and obtained the sale certificate conceitedly. The said Ramakrishnan even after purchas