Judgment : First defendant in O.S.No.346 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, is the revision petitioner. 2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for the following reliefs: “(1) declaring that plaintiff are entitled to the rights and honours details in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint, (2) restraining the defendants, there men, agents or any person claiming under them, by an order of permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs rights and honours detailed in schedule ‘B’ to the plaint or in the alternative, for mandatory injunction directing their implementation, (3) directingthe 1st defendant to plaintiffs Rs.10,000 towards damages with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realisation, (4) directingthe defendant to pay plaintiffs the cost of this suit, and (5) grantingsuch other reliefs as are deemed fit.” 3. According to the plaintiffs, their family is the oldest one living in Thiruvehindrapuram and has certain unique rights and honours as described in detail in ‘B’ Schedule to the plaint and these rights are attached to them for at least 500 years. According to them, the rights and honours are being enjoyed by them by virtue of their office and title of ‘Sripadam’ conferred on them by the temple authorities many centuries back. According to them, plaintiffs is the only one described as ‘Sripadam’ in the entire area. In view of the office enjoyed by their family, Devasthanam has granted many lands to the family. According to them, the religious rights and ceremonies in the temple are done only in consultation with the plaintiffs. 4. In ‘B’ schedule to the plaint, plaintiffs have described the various honours, which they are entitled to. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that they are now prevented from exercising those rights and for various reasons stated in the plaint, plaintiffs entitled to make use of those rights. 5. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, he denied the right of the plaintiff and also contended the suit itself is not maintainable. According to him, the suit is barred under provisions of H.R. & C.E. Act and the rights claimed is not of civil nature. It is further contended that since the plaintiffs are claiming only honourary rights attached to the religion, the same could not be enforced in a civil court as if it is a civil right. According to him, the suit is barred under provisions of H.R. & C.E. Act and the rights claimed is not of civil nature. It is further contended that since the plaintiffs are claiming only honourary rights attached to the religion, the same could not be enforced in a civil court as if it is a civil right. He has also taken other factual contentions, which are not relevant for the purpose of this case and hence not extracted. 6. The reason for filing this revision is, petitioner filed I.A.No.2125 of 1999 before the lower court, requesting that the maintainability of the suit will have to be heard as a preliminary issue. According to the defendant, suit is barred under Sec.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the plaintiffs are not having a civil right to enforce the rights claimed in the plaint. He wanted the plaint to be rejected under O.7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. The same was seriously opposed by the plaintiffs and by the impugned order, the lower court held that the maintainability of the suit also, will be decided along with the suit and dismissed the application. The same is challenged in this revision under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Accordingto the learned counsel for the petitioner, on mere reading of the plaint will show, the suit as framed is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected at the threshold. Counsel submitted that merely issues have been suggested or the evidence are began, the jurisdiction of the court is not taken away to decide a preliminary issue. It is argued that if by deciding preliminary issue, if the suit itself could be disposed of an precious time of the court should not be wasted in taking evidence, which becomes irrelevant. 10. As against the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the lower court has only postponed the decision and there is no urgency in hearing the maintainability of the suit, when the suit is ripe for trial. It is further submitted that the present attempt of the petitioner is only to prolong the litigation and the same is without any bona fides. He prayed for the dismissal of the revision. 11. It is further submitted that the present attempt of the petitioner is only to prolong the litigation and the same is without any bona fides. He prayed for the dismissal of the revision. 11. In one of the earlier decisions of the Hon’be Supreme Court reported in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 S.C.C. ?Supp.? 314, this question was considered under the Representation of the People Act. Their Lordships considered whether an election petition could be rejected under O.7, Rule 11, C.P.C. and whether there is any bar under law to reject the election petition at threshold or whether it could be rejected even at earlier stage. There Lordships also considered the purpose and scope of O.7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus: “12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next argued that in any event the powers to reject an election petition summarily under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be exercised at the threshold. In substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only after the trial of the election is concluded that the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the learned counsel, it is an argument which it is difficult to comprehend. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation the court readily exercise the power to reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. Or the power to direct the concerned party to strike out unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious parts of the pleadings. Or such pleadings which are likely to cause embarrassment or delay the fair trial of the action or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of law. An order directing a party to strike out a part of the pleading would result in the termination of the case arising in the context of the said pleading. Or such pleadings which are likely to cause embarrassment or delay the fair trial of the action or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of law. An order directing a party to strike out a part of the pleading would result in the termination of the case arising in the context of the said pleading. The courts in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can also treat any point going to the root of the matter such as one pertaining to jurisdiction or maintainability as a preliminary point and can dismiss a suit without proceeding to record evidence and hear elaborate arguments in the context of such evidence, if the court is satisfied that the action would terminate in view of the merits of the preliminary point of objection. The contention that even if the election petition is liable to be dismissed ultimately it should be so dismissed only after recording evidence is a thoroughly misconceived and untenable argument. The powers in this behalf are meant to be exercised to serve the purpose for which the same have been conferred on the competent court so that the litigation comes to an end at the earliest and the concerned litigants are relieved of the psychological burden of the litigation so as to be free to follow their ordinary pursuits and discharge their duties. And so that they can adjust their affairs on the footing that the litigation will not make demands on their time or resources, will not impede their future work, and they are free to undertake and fulfil other commitments. Such being the position in regard to matter pertaining to ordinary civil litigation, there is greater reason for taking the same view in regard to matters pertaining to elections. “ [Italics supplied] 12. In Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath 1987 S.C.C. ?Supp.? 663 in para.5 of the judgment, it was held thus: “In an election petition can be summarily rejected at the threshold of the proceeding we do not see any reason as to why the same cannot be rejected at any stage of subsequent proceeding. “ [Italics supplied] 12. In Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath 1987 S.C.C. ?Supp.? 663 in para.5 of the judgment, it was held thus: “In an election petition can be summarily rejected at the threshold of the proceeding we do not see any reason as to why the same cannot be rejected at any stage of subsequent proceeding. If after framing of issues basic defect in the election petition persists (absence of cause of action) it is always open to the contesting respondent to insist that the petition be rejected, under O.7, Rule 11 and the court would be acting within its jurisdiction, in considering the objection. O.7, Rule 11, C.P.C. should be exercised at a particular stage only. In the absence of any restriction placed by the statutory provision, it is open to the court to exercise that power at any stage. “ [Italics supplied] 13. Both the above decisions were followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ?1998?2 S.C.C. 70. In that case, their Lordships held that the principle enunciated in the previous case should be strictly applied in suits, also and in paragraphs 12 to 16, their Lordships held thus: ”12. The first point here is whether the power to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. can be exercised even after the framing of issues, and when the matter is posted for evidence. This point has arisen because the Division Bench of the High Court has referred to this aspect while dismissing the appeal. 13. We may state that in the context of Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. a contention that once issues have been framed, the matters has necessarily to go to trial has been clearly rejected by this Court in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 S.C.C. ?Supp.? 314at324? as follows: (S.C.C. Para.12] “In substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only a after the trial.. is concluded that the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the learned counsel, it is an argument which is difficult to comprehend. is concluded that the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the learned counsel, it is an argument which is difficult to comprehend. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court….” The abovesaid judgment which related to an election petition is clearly applicable to suits also and was followed in Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath 1987 S.C.C. ?Supp.? 663. We therefore hold that the fact that issues have been framed in the suit cannot come in the way of consideration of this application filed by the appellant under O.7, Rule 11, C.P.C. 14. We shall next deal with the question whether the allegations in the plaint prove a cause of action against the appellant for recovery by the Bank of the amounts already paid under the irrevocable letters of credit. 15. The principles regarding the payment of amounts covered by bank guarantees or irrevocable Letters of Credit are fairly well settled. They have been discussed in detail in several cases and there is an exhaustive discussion of the principles in U.P.Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers U.P.Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers U.P.Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers ?1988?1 S.C.C. 174. Reference was also made by the learned counsel before us to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in United Commercial Bank v. Hanuman Synthetics Ltd. A.I.R. 1985 Cal. 96, which one of us, Suhas C.Sen, J. was a party). It will be noticed that the above cases do say that the bank has to honour the bank guarantee or Letters of Credit subject of course to the cases of two exceptions where there was fraud or irretrievable injury. In the present case, the contention for the Bank is based on fraud or misrepresentation by the appellant. That is stated to be the cause of action in the plaint. 16. In the present case, the contention for the Bank is based on fraud or misrepresentation by the appellant. That is stated to be the cause of action in the plaint. 16. The question is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of O.7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint.” 14. In view of the above settled legal position, I do not find the order of the lower court is correct. If on the preliminary issue, the entire suit it self could be disposed of as not maintainable or it is barred under O.7, Rule 11, I do not think the court should wait for the entire evidence is over. Merely because the evidence have began or the trial is in progress, may not be a ground to hold that the maintainability of suit could be heard along with the suit. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to consider the question of maintainability, they need only take note of the plaint and no evidence is required to substantiate the same. According to the counsel, a reading of the plaint itself disclose that the suit is not of civil nature and the same is barred under Sec.108 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. Remedy of the plaintiffs is only to move the Authorities under that Act, even if they got any right. 15. After hearing the counsel on both sides, that the question whether the suit is maintainable or is barred under any provisions of H.R. & C.E. Act, have to be decided by the court at the initial stage itself. The lower court was not justified in holding that even the maintainability of suit will be taken up along with the final disposal of the suit. I have already extracted The purpose and scope of O.7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in that the precious time of the court should not be wasted if ultimately the suit is dismissed as not maintainable. 16. Inthe result, the impugned order is set aside and the lower court is directed to consider whether the suit is maintainable under law. 16. Inthe result, the impugned order is set aside and the lower court is directed to consider whether the suit is maintainable under law. Lower court shall hear the parties and enter a finding of maintainability or otherwise of the suit at any rate on or before 33. 2000 and report compliance of the same to this Court. 17. C.R.P. is allowed as above. No costs.