Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vidhushi Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Singh and Mr. Akshat Dalal, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 26.02.2016 whereby the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff-respondent No.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 238 Kanals 10 Marlas in Khata No.1-2-36 situated in Village Beer Ferozari, H.B. No.364, Tehsil and District Panchkula as per Jamabandi for the year 2008-09 on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 01.09.2003 executed between plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the defendant-petitioners and further for challenging the cancellation of GPAs dated 19.01.2004 and 07.06.2006 and further for permanent injunction. The defendant-petitioners herein filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the contents of which read as under :

"1. That the present Civil Suit filed by the plaintiffs is pending in this Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today i.e. 14.01.2014.

2. That the applicants/defendants are filing an accompanying detailed written statement, the contents thereof may kindly be read as a part and parcel to this application as well.

3. That in view of the detailed submissions made by the applicants/defendants, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs deserves not to be entertained and proceeded with and deserves to be dismissed straightway being not maintainable in the present form at all. The plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present civil suit against the applicants/defendants nor they have right, tile or concern with the suit property.

In view of the above submissions and accompanying detailed written statement, it is respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the present suit filed by the plaintiffs may kindly be dismissed with costs."

3. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 26.02.2016 the said application came to be dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that the suit was barred by limitation as also that no cause of action is made out from a reading of the plaint. Learned counsel for the defendantpetitioners has relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) thr LRs & Ors. [2020(3) RCR (Civil) 98], Fatehji and Company & Anr. vs. L.M. Nagpal & Ors. [2015(2) RCR (Civil) 999], Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [2011(4) RCR (Civil) 669], Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Nagraj Ganeshmal Jain & Ors. [2017(3) RCR (Civil) 964], Rakesh Malhotra vs. Kamaljit Singh Sandhu & Ors. [2019(1) RCR (Civil) 90], Ghanshyam Sarda vs. Sashikant Jha & Ors. [2017(1) RCR (Civil) 1], Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors. [2023(2) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 444 = 2023 SCC OnLine SC 521] and C.S. Ramaswamy & Ors. vs. V.K. Senthil & Ors. [2022(4) RCR (Civil) 426].

5. Per contra learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 would contend that the application itself is totally bereft as to how no cause of action is made out. It is further the contention that the ground of limitation was neither raised in the application nor argued before the Trial Court. Learned senior counsel appearin