The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the maintainability of Civil Revision Petition and the availability of alternative statutory redressal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the need for sparing exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 958 of 2012 in O.S. No. 529 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore, the plaintiff filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 529 of 2012 for Specific Performance, declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the first defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 58 of 2012 under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking for rejection of the plaint. The application, filed by the first defendant, was contested by the plaintiff.

3. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both the parties and also Ex.P.1 document, produced by the first defendant, allowed the application in I.A. No. 958 of 2012 and rejected the suit as not maintainable. As against this order, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, raised a preliminary issue, with regard to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition, as against the order passed in the application in I.A. No. 958 of 2012, rejecting the suit as not maintainable.

5. Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/first defendant submitted that the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable as against the order passed in I.A. No. 958 of 2012. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:

(i) 2015 (1) SCC 379 (Sameer Singh and another Vs. Abdul Rab and others), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

25. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to the pronouncement in Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another (1997) 3 SCC 694 wherein a two-Judge Bench scanning the anatomy of the rules came to hold that:-

“9. ... ... a stranger to the decree who claims an independent right, title and interest in the decretal property can offer his resistance before getting actually dispossessed. He can equally agitate his grievance and claim for adjudication of his independent right, title and interest in the decretal property even after losing possession as per Order XXI, Rule 99. Order XXI, Rule 97 deals with a stage which is prior to the actual execution of the decree for possession wherein the grievance of the obstructionist can be adjudicated upon before actual delivery of possession to the decree-holder. While Order XXI, Rule 99 on the other hand deals with the subsequent stage in the execution proceedings where a stranger claiming any right, title and interest in the decretal property might have got actually dispossessed and claims restoration of possession on adjudication of his independent right, title and interest dehors the interest of the judgment-debtor. Both these types of enquiries in connection with the right, title and interest of a stranger to the decree are clearly contemplated by the aforesaid scheme of Order XXI and it is not as if that such a stranger to the decree can come in the picture only at the final stage after losing the possession and not before it if he is vigilant enough to raise his objection and obstruction before the warrant for possession gets actually executed against him.”

26. The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out that the court has the authority to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties. It also includes the claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession or has already been dispossessed from the immovable property. The self-contained Code, as has been emphasised by this Court, enjoins the executing court to adjudicate the lis and the purpose is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is also so because prior to 1976 amendment the grievance was required to be agitated by filing a suit but after the amendment the entire enquiry has to be conducted by the executing court. Order XXI, Rule 101 provides for the determination of necessary issues. Rule 103 clearly stipulates that wh