M.S. RAMESH, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike the suit proceedings in O.S. No. 141 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

2. Heard Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Sasindran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised a ground that the plaint averments do not constitute a cause of action and therefore, the suit proceedings are liable to be struck down. According to the learned Senior counsel, an overall reading of the plaint, do not establish the allegation of fraud played in the execution of the Sale-Deed dated 22.07.2005. The vague allegations of fraud averred in the plaint are illusionary, averred through clever drafting and therefore, the plaint is liable to be struck down. It is his further submission that the suit for declaration that the sale-deed is null and void, preferred after a period of 11 years, is barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act and since the suit is ultimately bound to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, this Court should exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and strike off the suit proceedings. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that since the suit proceedings are vexatious, the same amounts to an abuse of process of law and therefore is liable to be strike off on this ground also.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herein had played fraud by having the sale-deed executed against the interest of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved that the plaint is liable to be rejected, the option available to him is under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and as such, the present Civil Revision Petition filed directly before this Court, by invoking Article 227, is not proper. The learned counsel submitted that the suit is well, within the period of limitation and therefore, the ground of limitation raised by the petitioner herein, being a question of mixed facts and law, requires adjudication by way of trial.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

6. The brief facts of the case, for the purpose of determining the various grounds raised by the counsels, are as follows:-

7. The respondent herein claims to be in possession of the property bearing Door No. 85 at Montorsier Street, Puducherry for a considerable time (hereinafter referred to as suit property). Alleging that the petitioner herein had tried to disturb her possession over the suit property, she had filed a suit in O.S. No. 141 of 2016, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner herein had also filed a suit in O.S. No. 979 of 2016, seeking for the same relief.

8. When both the suits were pending, the respondent herein had filed the suit in O.S. No. 141 of 2016 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry, seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the Sale-Deed dated 22.07.2005 as null and void. According to the respondent herein, the existence of the sale-deed was brought to her notice, only during the course of the criminal investigation on her complaint before the jurisdictional police station. Hence, the respondent herein had immediately filed the suit in O.S. No. 141 of 2016 seeking for declaration to declare that the Sale-Deed dated 22.07.2005 as null and void.

9. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on certain decisions and submitted that the plaint averments do not disclose a cause of action substantiating that the sale-deed is liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, which also amounts to an abuse of process of law. In the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Cambridge Solutions Limited vs