ORDER

Heard Mr.V.A.Dhana Aravindha Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 4.

2.This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.226 of 2015 in I.A.No.64 of 2015 in O.S.No.3 of 2015 dated 10.10.2015 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sattur and to set aside the same.

3.The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, the first respondent herein is the third defendant and the respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2015 for a prayer of declaring the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 https://hcsiervnice s.Decooucrts..g ov.Nino/hc.se8rv3ic8es5/ /2014 dated 01.12.2014 in the office of the SRO, Sattur as illegal and for perpetual injunction against the defendants. In that suit, the first respondent herein filed a petition in I.A.No.64 of 2015 to reject the plaint. The petitioner herein filed a petition in I.A.No.226 of 2015 to implead the respondents 2 to 4 in I.A.No.64 of 2015. The petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, the petitioner has come forward with this revision petition.

4.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for a specific relief. The first respondent herein has filed a petition in I.A.No.64 of 2015 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint without impleading the respondents 2 to 4.

5.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner filed a impleading petition stating that there was an agreement for sale between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 and the sale price of Rs.1,15,00,000/- was paid as an advance on 15.12.2015. On the date of agreement itself, possession was handed over to the plaintiff and that the property contain 57 buildings and that the plaintiff is running a fireworks by the name Chellakani and that the property is in his possession and that the defendants 3 and 4 entered into the property on the basis of a sale deed. All the defendants are relatives and the consideration is stated only as Rs.58,00,000/-. Only with an intention to grab possession, the defendants 1, 2 and 4 are purposely let themselves to be set as exparte. All the necessary parties are to be impleaded in the petition to reject the plaint. Atleast the petitioner must be able to get back his advance amount and prayed that the petition to be allowed.

6.On the side of the respondents 1 and 4, it is stated that impleading the respondents is not necessary. I.A.No.64 of 2015 is filed and is still pending and the presence of the new respondents is unwanted in the petition. The plaintiff has not filed any reply statement to answer the rebuttals made by the defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 colluded with the plaintiff tried to deprive the rights of the third defendant from his possession. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 are not necessary parties to decide the issue in the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

7.On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the respondents 1, 2 and 4 are not necessary parties. The Court has to take a decision looking into the pleadings of the plaint and not based on the rebuttals made by the defendants 1, 2 and 4 who were already set exparte. In support of his contention, the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal reported in 2017 (1) T.N.C.J. 846 (SC), which reads as follows:

“In other words, under Order 7, Rule 11, the Court has to take a decision looking at the pleadings of https://hcservices.ecoturhtse.go v.pin/lhcaseirvnicets/iff only and not on the rebuttal made by the defendant or any other materials produced by the defendant.”

8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would rely upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust And Educational Charitable Society