Judgment : The defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No. 261 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani are the revision petitioners, herein. The first respondent herein has filed the said suit for partition., Pending suit, the petitioners herein have filed I.A. No.89 of 2006 under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on 211. 2006, hence, the present revision petition has been filed. 2. Mr. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the deceased first petitioner herein, who is the father of the second petitioner herein had executed a registered release deed dated 29. 2004 in his favour which is prior to the cut off date i.e., 20.12.2004, from that date the first respondent is entitled to benefits if any, under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by Act 39 of 2005, hence, the suit filed by her, seeking for partition of the very same property is untenable in law, therefore, the petitioners have filed the application to reject the plaint, which was erroneously rejected by the Court below; that the disposition or alienation of any property prior to 20.12.2004 cannot be subjected to Section 6 of the Act 39 of 2005; that in order to prove that the marriage of the first respondent was conducted prior to 20.12.2004, the petitioners have marked Exhibit P1 dated 29. 2005, certified copy of the marriage extract to show that the first respondent got married on 2. 1989 itself, but the Court below failed to consider it on the erroneous ground that the validity of the said exhibit has to be decided only at the time of trial; that the other reasons assigned for rejecting the application of the petitioners is untenable in law and prayed for allowing the revision petition. 3. Mr. Ravichandra Babu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the marriage of the first respondent was solemnized on 2. 1998 and not as alleged by the petitioners on 12. 3. Mr. Ravichandra Babu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the marriage of the first respondent was solemnized on 2. 1998 and not as alleged by the petitioners on 12. 1989, hence, Exhibit P1, sought to be marked by the petitioners was rightly refused by the Court below; that the suits, in O.S. Nos.126 of 2003 and 835 of 2004 also were filed in respect of the same suit property; that O.S. No.853 of 2004 was decreed, however, OS. No.126 of 2003 is still pending before the District Munsif Court, Bhavani and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 4. The parties herein are brothers, sisters and brother-in-law. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for partition seeking 1/4th share in the suit property on the ground that she is entitled to the benefits of the amended Hindu Succession Act. It is also not in dispute that already two suits, O.S. Nos. 126 of 2003 and 853 of 2004 were filed in which O.S. No.853 of 2004 was decreed and the other suit in O.S. No. 126 of 2003 is still pending before the Court below. Both sides also not produced the, plaint copy of the said two suits or decree passed in O.S. No.853 of 2004. The trial Court, in its order also referred to the said suits, which is one of the grounds for its conclusion to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners. The one other ground of the trial Court was that the documents relied on by the parties are disputed by each other, hence, full trial is required to decide the merits of the said documents and claims of the parties. 5. The Court is competent to reject a plaint at any state of the proceedings if it finds that conditions under Rule 11 exists. The provisions of Rule 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has got inherent powers to see that vexations litigations are not allowed to take or consume the time of the Court. In appropriate cases, directions can be issued by the High Court as well as the Court in which the suit is filed not to entertain the suit. 6. The provisions of Rule 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has got inherent powers to see that vexations litigations are not allowed to take or consume the time of the Court. In appropriate cases, directions can be issued by the High Court as well as the Court in which the suit is filed not to entertain the suit. 6. In view of the said reasons and the reasons assigned by the trial Court that the dispute between the parties can be resolved only after trial, this Court finds no other different reasons to disagree with the findings of the Court below. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 261 of 2005 on its file on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Revision dismissed.