The court reiterated that issues of locus standi and cause of action must be determined at trial, and the plaint's allegations are presumed true for rejection petitions under Order 7, Rule 11.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) against the Opposite Party No.1(plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) arraying the Opposite Party No.2(defendant no.4 in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2019(Annexure-4) passed in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 by the learned 2^nd Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Cuttack.

2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners (defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 pending in the court of the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Cuttack) for filing of the same is that, the Opposite party No.1 in this revision being the sole plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the petitioners and Opposite Party No.4 of this revision arraying them as defendants praying for a declaration that, the defendants have no right to deal with the suit land in any manner and also to declare that, defendant nos.1 to 3 have no right to create the sale deed or any other deed of conveyance in respect of the suit land in favour of any third party and to injunct/restrain the defendants from executing any deed of conveyance in respect of the suit land and to declare the RSD No.1944 dated 19.07.2010 executed by the defendant nos.1 to 3 in favour of the defendant no.4 in respect of such suit land as illegal, void and to declare that, said deed has not created any title in respect of the suit land in favour of the defendant no.4 and to injunct the defendant no.4 permanently from coming upon the suit land and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land along with other relief(s), to which, the plaintiff is entitled for stating in the plaint that, the suit schedule land being the Government land, the same was leased out in favour of an unregistered firm, namely, M/s. Elbird Hatchery through its proprietor Debi Prasad Das(predecessor of defendant nos.1 to 3) in the year, 1987. The predecessor of the defendant nos.1 to 3, i.e., Debi Prasad Das was the Managing director of the plaintiff company. In that company, the father of Debi Prasad Das, i.e., Jadunath Das and Debendra Chhotray(on whose representation the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company has been filed) were the Directors.

On the basis of an amicable decision of all the Directors/shareholders of the company, the said company, i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery was taken over by the plaintiff company, i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd. For which, the suit properties of M/s. Elbird Hatchery vested with the plaintiff company, i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd. Due to merging of M/s. Elbird Hatchery with the plaintiff company i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff company applied for a term loan before the State Bank of India, Jagatpur Branch and obtained loan in the name of plaintiff company mortgaging the suit properties in the Bank in order to secure such loan. Father of Debi Pradas Das, i.e., Jadunath Das died on 06.12.2004. Thereafter, Debi Prasad Das died on 09.06.2007. After the death of Director and Managing Director of the plaintiff company, i.e., Jadunath Das and Debi Prasad Das respectively, the defendant no.1(wife of Debi Prasad Das) applied for mutation of the suit land to her name initiating Mutation Case No.57 of 2008 before the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar. The said Mutation Case was rejected.