JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - The petitioner has preferred the present civil revision under Section 115 of CPC arising out of order dated 05-08-2021 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena in RCS No.95 of 2020 whereby the application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Necessary facts for disposal of present revision in short are that initially plaintiffs (herein respondents No.1 and 2) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, pleading therein that defendant no.1 (herein petitioner) is the real brother-in-law of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 (herein respondent No.2) is the wife of defendant No.1 and they are close relatives and had jointly purchased 10,000 sq.ft of land in between 18-10-1995 to 18-03- 2008. Out of 10,000 sq. ft. of land, defendant No.1 started business of stone works on 5000 sq.ft of the disputed land and obtained loan amount from the bank in advance by way of preparation of forged documents. In the plaint averments, the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants have not paid any lease rent to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereafter sent a legal notice to defendants for vacating the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirements. It is further pleaded that the defendants without permission of plaintiffs are creating a nuisance by digging the disputed land for the purpose of construction of water tank. Hence, plaintiffs claimed Rs.50,000/- per annum as mesne profit from the date of filing of suit as well as for recovery of possession.

3. Defendants filed reply along with application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court and also filed another application under the same provision before the trial Court. Plaintiffs also filed reply to the same by refuting the averments made by defendants and pleaded that second application filed by defendants is barred by principle of res judicata as the earlier application has been rejected by the trial Court on 22-02- 2021. The trial Court rejected the application filed by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC vide impugned order. Hence, this petition.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the learned trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order dated 05-08-2021 whereby the application filed by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has wrongly been rejected. There is no cause of action shown in the plaint by plaintiffs. The suit for eviction filed by one of co- sharers against another co-sharers is not maintainable as the same has been filed under the MP Accommodation Control Act in the year 2020 i.e. prior to expiry of period of lease which was in existence in favour of the petitioner for a period near about thirty years. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation as the same is superseding the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The suit is barred by law on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party though Central Bank is a necessary party. Defendants had obtained advance loan amount from the Bank in which the plaintiffs are guarantors. Both the parties are joint owners of undivided suit property and without alleging breach of condition of lease deed, plaintiffs did not have any cause of action for instituting the proceedings for eviction against petitioner. In view thereof, the suit filed by plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action as per provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC but learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application filed by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC. Hence, it is prayed that the impu