ORDER

1. This Civil Revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 against the order dated 12.3.2021, passed in RSCA No.286/2019 by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore whereby, the petitioners'/defendants' application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for dismissal of the plaint has been rejected.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the land situated at village-Chota Bangda, District-Indore admeasuring 17,897 sq. feet. The case of the plaintiff is that earlier he had purchased 20,000 sq.ft. of land out of 37,897 sq.ft. of land from the defendants in the year 1999. According to the plaintiff, this land could not be sold in piecemeal manner and at the time of execution of the sale deed, it was also assured by the defendants no.4 and 5 that remaining land shall also be sold to the plaintiff only but still an agreement was entered into with the defendants no.2 to 4 which was also challenged by the plaintiff in Civil Original Suit No.11A/2011 which was decreed on 23.01.2014 and it was declared that the said sale agreement is null and void, and plaintiff's other suit COS NO.253A/18 for execution of the sale deed in respect of the remaining piece of land ad-measuring 17897 is still pending in the Court.

3. In the present suit, the petitioners / defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C. contending that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit as no document has been placed on record demonstrating the title or right on the suit property. Thus, it is stated that only on the ground that the plaint dose not discloses the cause of action as he has no locus standi, the civil suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the civil court vide impugned order dated 12.3.2021 holding that the pleadings of the plaint has to be considered in its entity and the plaintiff has also pleaded in para 12 of the plaint as to when the cause of action has arisen.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Judge of the Civil Court has erred in not considering the fact that not a single document has been filed on record by the plaintiff demonstrating his right to claim the relief sought in the plaint. Counsel has also submitted that even in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff, the Civil Court has only held that the owner of the land/ defendant No.5 is not entitled to sell the land over and above ad- measuring 17,897 sq.ft., as in the aforesaid case, it was held that the agreement entered into between the defendant No.5 and the defendants No.1 to 3 is null and void. Thus, it is submitted that the plaint, on its plain pleadings itself does not disclose any cause of action and the plaintiff (s) himself/themselves has/have no locus standi. Thus, it is submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of his submissions, Shri Arpit Singh, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA) dead through legal representatives and others reported as (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Colonel Shrwwan Kumar Jaipuriyar Alias Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nandan Singh and another reported as (2020) 16 SCC 594.

7. On the other hand, Shri Rakesh Kumar Laad, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the revision and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the learned Judge of trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioners have made proper pleadings regarding the cause of action. It is also submitted that the defendants had filed the application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC after seeking ten opportunities to file the written statement, which clearly demonstrates that their only intention is to further prolong the matter. Thus, it is