The Court emphasized the importance of triable issues and the respective claims and cause of action of the parties in determining the maintenance of the suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair decreetal order passed in I.A.No.215 of 2019 in O.S.No.114 of 2018 dated 21.04.2022 by the District Judge – II, Kanchipuram.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram dated 21.04.2022, made in I.A.No.215 of 2019 in O.S.No.114 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff for the relief of recovery of possession. The petitioner / defendant has filed a petition to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C and the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent / plaintiff has no locus standi to file a suit against him, since the revision petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No.170 of 2005, for the relief of specific performance in respect of the same suit property, in view of the sale agreement executed between the petitioner and one Selvanayagam on 15.04.2005; the defendants in O.S.No.170 of 2005, namely Varadarajan and Nirmala have executed a power of attorney in favour of one Selvanayagam; the said Selvanayagam had executed a sale agreement dated 15.04.2005, in favour of the revision petitioner for himself and as a power agent for the defendants viz., Varadarajan and Nirmala; since Selvanayagam did not execute the sale deed as agreed, the revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.170 of 2005, for seeking the relief of specific performance; the said Selvanayagam died in the year 2005; after the death of Selvanayagam, the defendants in O.S.No.170 of 2005, sold the suit property to the respondent; So, the respondent is a person who has purchased the property during the pendency of the earlier suit in O.S.No.170 of 2005.

5. According to the revision petitioner, since an exparte decree was passed in O.S.No.170 of 2005 and the same is pending, the respondent / plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this suit for recovery of possession. The further contention of the revision petitioner is that the learned Trial Judge did not notice the decree has already been passed in O.S.No.170 of 2005, in favour of the revision petitioner; and respondent has suppressed all the said facts and filed the suit without any cause of action and hence the suit is not maintainable.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submitted that the vendors of the respondent / plaintiff has not executed any power of attorney in favour of one Selvanayagam as alleged by the revision petitioner; therefore, the respondent / plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser; since, the revision petitioner / defendant is a trespasser of the suit property, the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.114 of 2018, for recovery of possession; since there are triable issues, the learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the petition to reject the plaint.

7. Point for consideration :

Whether the order of the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint in O.S.No.114 of 2018, is fair and proper?

8. The contention of the revision petitioner is that he is an agreement holder for the suit property. It is alleged that the property was owned jointly by Selvanayagam and the vendors of the respondent / plaintiff viz., Varadarajan and Nirmala. The petitioner has stated that the said Varadarajan and Nirmala had executed a power of attorney in favour of Selvanayagam and Selvanayagam as power agent and for himself executed a sale agreement dated 15.04.2005, in favour of the revision petitioner. It is true that the revision petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.170 of 2005, for seeking