ORDER

1. The present petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1.8.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the 7th Civil Judge, Class-I, Katni in Civil Suit No. RCSA NO. 385/2021 in which the trial Court rejected the ap- plication filed by the petitioner under Section 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.

2. In brief the respondents/ plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present defendants claiming his title on the basis of sale-deed executed in the year 2012 and pleaded that Bhairo Cha- truvedi purchased Khasra No. 1126/10, rakba 0.25 hectare from Triveni Prasad and after death of Bhairo Chaturvedi, Prakashnath was title holder of the aforesaid land. Thereafter, Prakashnath got amendment done as per sale- deed agreement. Late Prakashnath filed frequent litigation against the so- called seller of the property, which are discussed in the plaint. Plaintiff fur- ther pleaded that no civil case has ever taken place against the plaintiff and the defendants got decree in regard to another land and the plaintiff never purchased any land from Raghuvir Singh so defendants have no right of title and possession over plaintiff’s land.

3. The defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. before the trial Court and pleaded that no cause of action arises in the plaint and plaintiffs are aware about the litigation and through utmost crafty and as- tute drafting has tried to create a cause of action.

4. The trial Court after hearing both the parties rejected the application of the applicants/ defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.

5. Being aggrieved this revision has been filed on the ground that the trial Court committed irregularity while passing the impugned order. The trial Court has fell in error in not appreciating the legality of sale-deed executed by the seller who himself has no locus or right to sale the property. Pleadings of the claim were not scrutinized properly. A perusal of the same would demonstrate that it had no cause of action as the sale-deed as proclaimed was of the year 2012 and the suit was filed in the year 2022.

6. It is further submitted that the trial Court through mentioned the rele- vance of plaint but ignored the submissions indicating the same Khasra where numerous litigations and its judgment were binding on the parties so pray for allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court in the interest of justice.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents plaintiffs sup- ported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the revision.

8. In short the question arises for consideration in this revision is whether the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. was rejected wrongly. Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code reads as under :

"11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plain- tiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued by the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plain- tiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, failed to do so;

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be, within the