ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.446 of 2019 in O.S.No.107 of 2015 dated 07.09.2020 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram, dismissing the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant. The first respondent/plaintiff has laid the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram against the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein, claiming the reliefs to declare that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction, for removal of the construction made in the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed their separate written statements and are contesting the suit. It is not in dispute that subsequently, the plaint was ordered to be returned on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, to be presented before the proper Court. Accordingly, the plaint was filed before the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram and the case was taken on file in O.S.No.107 of 2015.

3. Pending suit, the first defendant has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in I.A.No.446 of 2019 for rejecting the plaint for want of cause of action and that the learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, passed the impugned order dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the first defendant has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The first defendant has filed a short affidavit in support of the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and wherein, he has stated that the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram has returned the plaint for presenting the same before the proper Court, that in the meanwhile, the plaintiff has sold the property to three persons namely Azhagiri, Karthikeyan and Karthik on 01.04.2014, vide document No.738 of 2014, that the plaintiff by suppressing the sale deed, has presented the plaint before the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram fraudulently and that since the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The plaintiff has filed a detailed counter elaborating as to what had happened from the returning of the plaint by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, till the suit was taken on file by the Sub-ordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. The plaintiff has admitted the execution of sale deed in favour of Alagiri and two others on 01.04.2014. The plaintiff has taken a defence that he has not presented the suit by suppressing the sale, that the sale made by the plaintiff would be subject to the result of the suit as per the Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, that the plaintiff has not lost the cause of action, which had arisen earlier and that the first defendant has filed the above petition only to drag on the proceedings.

5. The suit in O.S.No.59 of 2002 was taken on file by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram on 17.12.2002. The plaint was ordered to be returned on 28.12.2006, on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction to be presented before the proper Court and both the parties were directed to appear before the concerned Court on 18.01.2007. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not presented the plaint before the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram on 18.01.2007 as directed by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram. But, on the other hand, the plaintiff has presented the plaint on 18.10.2012 before the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram along with an application to condone the delay of 2109 days in presenting the plaint before the sub Court. The plaint was returned and re-presented on 16.04.2013 and 02.01.2014 and on 08.01.2014. The petition to condone the delay was taken on file in I.A.No.121 of 2014 on 20.03.2014 and since the defendants have not filed any counter statement, the petition in I.A.No. 121 of 2014 was ordered to be allowed on payment of costs vide order dated 30.09.2015. Subsequently, the plaint was taken on file in O.S.No