O R D E R

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and decree dated 18.01.2017 made in I.A.No.1111 of 2016 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram.

2.The petitioner is 1st defendant, 1st respondent is plaintiff and 2nd respondent is 2nd defendant in O.S.No.28 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. The 1st respondent filed the said suit for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner, his men, agents, servants or any one claiming through him from making any further construction on the B-schedule property and for mandatory injunction, directing the petitioner and 2nd respondent to remove the concrete pillar and any other structure that may be made in the B-schedule property and in failure to do so, remove the same by issuing the warrant to the court officer appropriately. The petitioner filed written statement and is contesting the suit. Trial commenced. The 1st respondent filed proof affidavit and examined in chief. The suit was posted for cross- examination of the 1st respondent. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1111 of 2016, for rejection of plaint, under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C. According to the petitioner, the suit does not disclose cause of action and 1st respondent has not filed material documents along with plaint to substantiate his case. According to the petitioner, it is the 1st respondent who encroached his property, for which the petitioner filed O.S.No.77 of 2013, against him. The said suit was compromised and as per the rough sketch filed in compromise memo, the properties of petitioner and 1st respondent were identified. The petitioner has put up the construction only in his property, as per rough sketch. The 1st respondent suppressed earlier suit filed by the petitioner and compromise decree and has come out with the present suit. If the 1st respondent is aggrieved by compromise decree in O.S.No.77 of 2013 filed by the petitioner, he has to file a suit only to set aside the compromise decree. The filing of the present suit is barred under law. The present suit is filed by M.Sudarsan Raj, on behalf of the 1st respondent, based on the authorization letter. The 1st respondent is owner of the suit property and if he files a suit against the petitioner in order to protect his right over the suit property, he has to file suit either by himself or through valid power of agent. In the absence of any valid registered power of attorney executed in favour of said M.Sudarsan Raj, the filing of the present suit on the strength of mere authorization letter is not permissible in law. Hence, the suit is barred under law and cause of action is imaginary and illusory. The averments in the plaint do not disclose cause of action, which warrants for trial and plaint to be rejected.

3.The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit and denied various averments. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed the present I.A. when the suit was in the part-heard stage, only with a view to avoid getting into witness box. The petitioner has encroached the property of the 1st respondent and put up present construction. The 1st respondent has mentioned cause of action for the suit and also filed documents to prove his case. The 1st respondent further stated that the averments in the affidavit is beyond the pleadings and defence raised in the written statement filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to take defence or new plea without seeking permission of the Court. Additional defence in the form of affidavit being raised in the present application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is not maintainable. In the plaint, the 1st respondent has stated specifically as to nature of the suit, cause of action and relief sought for and prayed for dismissal of I.A.

4.The learned Judge considering the averments in the plaint, affidavit and counter affidavit, held that th