ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Thittakkudi, Cuddalore District in I.A.No.313 of 2018 in O.S.No.50 of 2014.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014. The suit was filed by the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from executing any document in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendants 3 to 5 till the disposal of the suits in O.S.No.1111 of 1985 and O.S.No.1169 of 1985.

3. In Paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is stated as follows :

“4. jhth nrhj;Jfs; thjpf;F g+h;tPfg;ghj;jpakhd nrhj;Jfs;

MFk;. mitfSf;F murhy; thjpapd; Nghpy; gl;lh vz;.1038 vd gl;lhTk; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. jhth nrhj;JfSf;F thjp jPh;itAk; nrYj;jp mDNghfk; nra;JtUfpd;whh;. jhth nrhj;Jfisg; nghWj;J 1-k; gpujpthjp, thjpapd; ghj;jpaj;jpid bid nra;J Chpy; Ngrp te;j fhuzj;jpdhy; jpl;lf;Fb b.K.Nfhh;l;by; X.v];.1111/1985 vd;w vz;zpy; bf;sNu\d; kw;Wk; rh];tj ,Q;rq;\d; ghpfhuk; Nfl;L jhth jhf;fy; nra;jpUe;jhh;. tof;F tprhuiz fhyj;jpy; thjp jd; fztUld; gQ;rhg; khepyj;jpy; ,Ue;j fhuzj;jpdhy;, ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M[uhfpl ,aytpy;iy. mjdhy;, mtiu mioj;J tof;F vf;];ghh;l;bahf js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;lJ. mNjNghy;, 1-k; gpujpthjp;, thjpahf ,Ue;J, mofk;khs; Nghpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l tof;F jpl;lf;Fb b.K. Nfhh;l; X.v];.1169/1985 tof;fpy; vf;];ghh;l;bahf jPh;g;G gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;lJ. ,e;jepiyapy; thjpahy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l nrf;\d; 5 ypkpl;Nl\d; Mf;l; kDf;fs; mDkjpf;fg;gl;L, rp.gp.rp. Mh;lh; 9 &y; 9 kw;Wk; rp.gp.rp. Mh;lh; 9 &y;

13 kDf;fs; epYitapy; ,Ue;J tUfpd;wJ. jhth nrhj;Jfs; ehsJtiuapy; thjpapd; RthjPd, mDNghfj;jpy; ,Ue;J tUfpd;wJ. mjpy; thjpia jtpu NtW ahUf;Fk; ve;jtpj iul;, ill;by; md;L ,d;bu];Lk; fpilahJ. nfhz;lhbdhYk; nry;yhJ.“

4. As seen from the above extract, after disclosing the pendency of the two suits in O.S.No.1111 of 1985 and O.S.No.1169 of 1985, the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014 was filed by the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner herein filed a petition to reject the plaint in O.S.No.50 of 2014 filed under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC. It is stated that the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground that it is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d)

of CPC.

5. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, reads as follows :

“Where it appears that the suits so instituted is barred by any other existent law, the plaint for the same shall be rejected. For instance, where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree, is at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased. If not, then for that reason the plaint shall be rejected.

On another instance, where in a suit against the government, the plaint does not state that a notice as required by Section 80 of the Code has been given, the plaint will be rejected under this clause.”

6. From the plain reading of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, a person can file a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) only if the suit is barred by law based on the averments made in the plaint. Whether the plaint has to be rejected or not cannot be considered on any other facts or materials supplied by the defendant either in the written statement or in the petition filed Order 7 Rule

11 CPC.

7. In the present case, the prayer in the suit itself qualifies the relief.

The respondent wants permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating the suit property till the two suits in O.S.No.1111 of 1985 and O.S.No.1169 of 1985 are disposed of.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the suit in O.S.No.1111 of 1985 was dismissed for default. It is stated that the said suit in O.S.No.1111 of 1985 was filed by the respondent / plaintiff for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. However, it is also admitted that an application was filed for restoration of the suit. It