Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby, the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on multifarious grounds has been dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration, rendition of accounts, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Written statement to the plaint was filed. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. Reply to that application was also filed by the plaintiff-respondents. The application of the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.01.2017, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that totally a non-speaking order has been passed and the contentions mentioned in the application have not been considered. It was specifically mentioned in the application that the Courts at Karnal did not have territorial jurisdiction in view of specific clause in agreement and conveyance deed, besides an Arbitration Clause. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the Civil Court was not having jurisdiction but the same has not been considered. Learned counsel also submits that the suit was bad for misjoinder of many causes of action and no cause of action to claim any of the reliefs prayed for in the suit was there. The plaintiff-respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 7, Rule 3 CPC read with High Court Rules and Orders and copy of the revenue record for showing the description of the suit property was not placed on record. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relevant judgments were relied upon but neither the arguments nor the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were considered.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file.

4. Filing of suit by the plaintiff-respondents and thereafter, filing of application by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, are not disputed. Plaintiffs have raised multifarious grievances and claiming reliefs against the defendants i.e for declaration, for rendition of accounts, for mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction.

5. As per provisions of Order 2, Rule 3 of CPC, the plaint cannot proceed by clubbing several causes against same defendants jointly interested and by raising different cause of action. As per Order 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, each grievance is required to be tried by way of separate suit. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, there was an Arbitration Clause and the same has not been taken into consideration. Under Clauses 22 and 23 of the 'Plot Buyers Agreement', there was an arbitration clause and the matter was to be referred to Arbitration but the suit was filed.

6. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that the application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the matter, in dispute, can be resolved only after the evidence is led from both the sides. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under :-

"17. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that present plaint is not barred by Section 15 of the Act as in the present case, the dispute is primarily between purchaser and colonizer, whereas, Section 15 puts an embargo on the jurisdiction of Civil Court only for resolution of the questions and rules framed thereunder. Although certain questions e.g. non payment of profits and fees to defendant No.12 fall in a different arena i.e. between defendants No.1 to 10 and defendant No.12 but being residents of the township, the suit of the plaintiffs cannot be termed as without any ca