Honble N.K. JAIN, J.—This is defendants revision petition directed against the order of learned District Judge, Pali dt. 27.989 in civil original suit no. 32/72. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner no. 1 Mari yam filed a suit on 20.9.72 for declaration and possession of the disputed land Nohra, a well and building situated at Pali against the defendant-non-petitioner no. 2 to 5 and also claimed damages for Rs. 5100/. It was alleged that she purchased the disputed Nohra from the defendant no. 4 Smt. Pani Bai and defendant no. 5 Satya Narain with the consideration of Rs. 25,000/on 30.4. 1971 and the registered deed was executed on 6.5.71 at Jodhpur. The defendant no. 2 expired and his legal representatives no. 3 to 9 were taken on record. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants no. 4 and 5 had sold the disputed Nohra to the defendant no. 6 Gulam Rasool, the present petitioner for Rs. 40,000/ on 29.8. 72 by a registered sale deed, the plaintiff on 25.5.78 sought an amendment to add para no. 5A to the effect that sale is void in favour of defendant no. 6 as the same is hit by doctrine of lispendence. The petitioner was added as defendant no. 6. During the course of argument an objection was raised that as the property is situated at Pali and registry was made at Jodhpur, the plaintiff sought another amendment on 10.9.82 alleging that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the registry made at Jodhpur is not valid one, she has got another registry of the same disputed Nohra executed at Sub - Registrar, Office Pali, on 5.9.1980 on the basis of earlier sale deed dt. 30.4.71, which bears signature of Pani Bai, her daughter Damyanti and defendant no. 5 Satyanarain as such she became exclusive owner of the disputed Nohra. The amendment was allowed on 11.10 82. During the pendency the defendant no. 3 has also expired on 31.5.86 but suit against him was abated as no steps were taken to bring L. Rs. on record. The defendand-petitioner and Ors. filed separate written statement. Issues were framed on 4.4.75 and 22.9.79 issue no. 17 was framed and thereafter on 15.3.1980 four more issues no. 18 to 21 were framed, and additional issue no. 22 was framed on 5.3.83 to fee the effect of document dt. 5.9.80. on record. The defendand-petitioner and Ors. filed separate written statement. Issues were framed on 4.4.75 and 22.9.79 issue no. 17 was framed and thereafter on 15.3.1980 four more issues no. 18 to 21 were framed, and additional issue no. 22 was framed on 5.3.83 to fee the effect of document dt. 5.9.80. The petitioner filed an application under 0. 7 Rule 11 on 6.8.1988 alleging that the plaintiff has not disclosed how she has got proprietory right in her favour from defendants no. 4 and 5 and the registered deed at. 30.4.71 and 5.9.1980 are no registry in the eye of law end there was no cause of action. The learned Distt. Judge after considering the relevant record dismissed the application. Hence, the defendant- petitioner has preferred this revision before this Court on 81. 1990. It may be noted that during the course of evidence of Ibrahim sale deeds dt. 30.4.71 and 5.9.1980 were tendered in evidence and were taken on record and marked as EX. 1 and EX. 2 respectively, objections were raised for taking them on record. The Court vide order dt. 23.1.84 observed while deciding issue no. 10 that the earlier document is not properly registered and it cannot be taken in evidence, however considered to be an agreement and be taken in evidence but observed that the effect on the parties of this document along with others will be considered later on in the suit. The defendant-petitioner had moved an application on 19.5.84 but the same was dismissed on 23.7.84 holding that the issues no. I, 11, 21and 22 will be considered after taking evidence. A review was also filed but the same was dismissed on 28.4.84 for which a separate revision has been filed which is pending since 30.4.91 in this Court bearing no. Civil Revision No. 283/91. 3. Mr. S.D. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the plaintiff has not disclosed any cause of action as to how he got title in his favour from defendants no. 4 and 5 and no relief was prayed against defendants no. 4 and 5 and defendant no. 6 was not a party. He has placed reliance on Samar Singh Vs. Kedarnath (1), Udhavsingb Vs. Madhavrao Sindhia(2), T.A.Vs. T.V. Satyapal (3), M.K. Shetty Vs. M.V. Laxminarain Rao (4), Somnath Berman Vs. Dr. S.P. Raju (5), Naiyer Service Society Ltd. Vs. 4 and 5 and no relief was prayed against defendants no. 4 and 5 and defendant no. 6 was not a party. He has placed reliance on Samar Singh Vs. Kedarnath (1), Udhavsingb Vs. Madhavrao Sindhia(2), T.A.Vs. T.V. Satyapal (3), M.K. Shetty Vs. M.V. Laxminarain Rao (4), Somnath Berman Vs. Dr. S.P. Raju (5), Naiyer Service Society Ltd. Vs. K.C. Alexander (6), P.C. Alexander Vs. Mathuradas (7), Ajarhussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi(8). He has also submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly relied on the registered deed dt. 30.4. 1971 and 5 9. 1980 which are defective and no registry in the eye of law and placed reliance on Jugrajsingh & Ors. Vs. Jaswant Singh (9), Babulal Vs. Kanhaiyalal (10) and Surajbahadur Vs. Mahadev(ll). 4. Mr. K.C. Samdariya, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that there is no jurisdictional error and the revision is not maintainable. He has submitted that the court has observed that all the points will be considered at the time of final hearing. He has further submitted that partly the property was in possession of the defendants no. 1 and 2 as such no relief was claimed against the defendants no. 4 and 5, even than it cannot be presumed that no cause of action has been disclosed. He has placed reliance on Bhagwan Das Vs. Goswami Brijesh Kumari (12) and Navin Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Vs. Shyam Prakash(13). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I need not discuss facts of the case law cited by the parties in detail. 6. In Samarsingh v. Kedarnath (supra) it has been observed in a election petition that on non-disclosure of cause of action, the court can reject the election petition even after settlement of issues. 7. In Ajarhussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi (supra) it has been observed that the power to dismiss under 0.7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised at threshold. 8. In Udhavsingh Vs. Madhavrao Sindhia (supra) it has been observed that all those facts which are essential to cloth the petitioner with a complete cause of action are material facts which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of section 13 (1) (a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 9. In T.A. Vs. 9. In T.A. Vs. T.V. Satyapal (supra) it has been observed that plaint be rejected if it is false or claims vexatious. 10. In M.K. Shetty Vs. M.V. Laxminarain Rao (supra) it has been observed that the plaintiff on the strength of his possession resist interference from defendant who has no better title than himself and get injunction restraining defendant from disturbing his possession. 11. In Naiyer Service v. K.C. Alexander (supra) it has been observed that in a suit filed u/s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, plaintiff need not prove title. 12. In Somnath Berman Vs. Dr. S.P. Raju (supra) it has been observed that prior possession of plaintiff is sufficient title. I3. In P.C. Alexander vs. Mathuradas (supra) a suit in which the ownership of the property was contested it has been held that the fact of the prior deed not having affected the property being unregistered was no reason why the deed afterwards registered should not be admitted as evidence of title. 14. In Juggrasingh v. Jaswant Singh (supra) it has been observed that first power of attorney not duly authenticated second power of attorney duly authenticated and noticing first being defective and same being ratified such ratification relates back to date of act done and agent is put in same position as if he had authority to do it at that date. Illegality in registration held cured. 15. In Nagubai Amal V. B. Sammarao (14) it has been observed that the effect of Section 52 is not to wipe out a sale pendente lite altogether but to subordinate it to the rights based on the decree in the suit. 16. In Babuial Vs. Kanhaiyalal (supra) it has been observed that sale by person holding power of attorney which was not valid, being unregistered now power of attorney duly registered ratifying the act of sale or power of attorney holder, it has been held that the sale deed being duly registered ratification validated the sale from the date of the sale. 17. In Surajbahadur V. Mahadev (supra) it has been observed that terms and conditions in unregistered document made part of later registered document such terms and conditions admissible. 18. In Badriprasad Vs. Ramprasad (15) it has been observed that the dismissal of a suit should normally follow upon a trial and not before except under exceptional situations. 19. 17. In Surajbahadur V. Mahadev (supra) it has been observed that terms and conditions in unregistered document made part of later registered document such terms and conditions admissible. 18. In Badriprasad Vs. Ramprasad (15) it has been observed that the dismissal of a suit should normally follow upon a trial and not before except under exceptional situations. 19. In Bhagwau Das V. Goswami Brijesh Kumari (supra) it has been observed that the documents can also be looked into while considering the averments of the plaint for the purpose of deciding the question that the plaint discloses a cause of action or not. It has also been observed that the question relating to the validity or invalidity of the documents cannot be considered at the stage of deciding an application under O. 7 Rule 11. 20. The proposition of law laid down in the said case law has not been disputed. It is no doubt true that application under 0.7 Rule 11 can be considered at any stage and meaningless or frivolous litigation should not be allowed to continue and it can be interferred at any stage. At the same time, the court should not succumb to ex-parte pressure in unmerited cases as it would tend to devolve to enlarge the scope of 0.7 Rule 11 C.P.C. so as to authorise the court to decide at that stage all questions of law, whose determination was necessary in the suit. It is also not disputed that a trespasser has best title except the rightful owner. Similarly in a suit for Specific Relief Act action for ejectment against property as prior possession of plaintiff is sufficient title At that same time no title can pass unless it is registered. 21. In the instant case, the main contention of the petitioner is that no cause of action has been disclosed as title suit is framed without showing title of vendor. The plaint can be looked into with the document but without considering the validity or invalidity of the documents as observed in Bhagwan Das Vs. Goswami Brijesh Kumari (supra). Each case depends on its own facts. In this case, the learned trial court considered the material on record, plaint along with the sale deed and not dismissed the suit. The plaint can be looked into with the document but without considering the validity or invalidity of the documents as observed in Bhagwan Das Vs. Goswami Brijesh Kumari (supra). Each case depends on its own facts. In this case, the learned trial court considered the material on record, plaint along with the sale deed and not dismissed the suit. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that this is a frivolous, vexatious or bogus litigation more particularly when written statement has been filed and issues have been framed and to some extent, evidence has also been recorded. In view of this, the suit cannot be dismissed at this stage when the scope of revision is limited one and this Court should not interfere in the impugned order howsoever erroneous it may be even if this Court may not agree with the conclusion on the question of fact and law, so as to call for any interference. Regarding the applicability of the cases, the same can be considered at the final stage while deciding the controversy and I need not considered it appropriate to express any opinion at this stage. In view of the above discussion, the learned court below has not acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity so as to call for any interference. 22. In the result, this revision petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.