ORDER N.K. Patil, J.— The common petitioners, assailing the correctness the order dated 23.10.2007 passed on Additional Issue No. 1 (in C.R.P. No. 17/2008) and on I.A. No. VII (in W.P. No. 19671/2007) in O.S. No. 943/2002 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, and in the interest of justice and equity, have presented the instant petitions. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents herein have filed O.S. No. 943/2002 before the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) Bangalore Rural District Bangalore, against defendants-petitioners herein for declaration and injunction. Defendants-petitioners herein have contested the said suit by filing written statement. The Trial Court after completion of pleadings has framed necessary issues. Prior to framing of issues by the Trial Court, defendants-petitioners herein have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of CPC, for rejecting the plaint. The said application filed by defendants-petitioners was rejected by the Trial Court and Additional issue was framed to that effect as to, Whether the defendants proves that in view of Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the suit is not maintainable?. The Trial Court after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant materials available on file, has passed the impugned orders as referred above. Having regard to these backgrounds, defendants-petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant Civil Revision petition against the order passed on Additional Issue No. 1 and writ petition against the order passed on I.A. No. VII filed under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of CPC. 3. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein is that, the impugned orders passed by the Court below on Additional Issue No. 1 and on I.A. No. VII in O.S. No. 943/2002 are liable to be set aside at threshold. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 3. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein is that, the impugned orders passed by the Court below on Additional Issue No. 1 and on I.A. No. VII in O.S. No. 943/2002 are liable to be set aside at threshold. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Further, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners has taken me through para-11 of the order passed on I.A. No. VII and submitted that, the Court below has specifically agreed regarding plaintiffs-respondents herein filing the Form No. 7(a) under Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act, before the Granting Authority as tenant seeking registration of occupancy rights and they cannot file a suit for declaration claiming adverse possession and observed that, on the said ground it is not proper to reject the plaint as it is pre-matured and the suit will be decided after conducting thorough trial regarding the fact of adverse possession which is based on the bundles of facts. The said reasoning given by the Court below is not justifiable and it is liable to be set aside in view of suppression of material fact by the plaintiffs-respondents. Further, learned Counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners has taken me through the order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that, the Trial Court has specifically pointed out in the order that, respondents have filed Form No. 7(a) for grant of occupancy rights before the granting authority. Learned Counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1977) 4 Scc 487 (T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr.) and submitted that if the parties approaches the Court, they must approach the Court with clean hands and state the true facts and when this has been specifically pointed out before the Trial Court, placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court, except making a reference about the reliance placed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, has not considered the specific ground urged by them. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for plaintiffs-respondents-Sri. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for plaintiffs-respondents-Sri. Chandan S. Rao at the out set submitted that, defendants-petitioners herein have not made out any good grounds to entertain the instant petitions, on the ground that, the Trial Court has rightly considered the matter and opined that the matter requires full trial to decide as to whether the plaintiffs-respondents herein are entitled to file a suit for declaration and injunction and therefore, interference by this Court at this stage is not justifiable. Further, to substantiate his submission he placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Mrs. Anuradha Shenoy Vs. N. Nanjappa, ILR (2008) KAR 390 and submitted that, an application under Order VII Rule 11(D) CPC is an application which has to be examined and ordered only on the plaint averments and nothing else and the question is not as to what the defendant pleaded but what is pleaded in the plaint and therefore, he submitted that the impugned orders passed by Trial Court is sustainable. Further, he submitted that, the relief sought for by plaintiffs-respondents before the Trial Court in the suit and the relief sought under the Land Reforms Act are distant in nature and they are in no way connected with each other and if this aspect is taken into consideration, the defendants-petitioners herein cannot maintain the instant petitions and nor they are entitled to seek any relief before this Court. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for plaintiffs-respondents herein submitted that, the instant petitions filed by defendants-petitioners may be dismissed. 5. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and after critical evaluation of the entire materials available on file and in the light of the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, the only question that arises for consideration in the instant petitions is as to: Whether the impugned orders passed by the Court below are in accordance with law? 6. 6. After going through the impugned orders passed by the Court below on Additional Issue No. 1 and I.A. No. VII, in O.S. No. 943/2002, it is manifest on the face of the orders that, the Trial Court has committed a grave error of law, much less material irregularity and miscarriage of justice in passing the orders contrary to the relevant materials available on file and the stand taken by defendants-petitioners herein in their written statement. The defendants-petitioners herein have specifically pointed out in their written statement before the Trial Court that, the suit filed by plaintiffs-respondents herein is liable to be rejected at the threshold on the ground that, plaintiffs-respondents herein have intentionally and deliberately suppressed the material facts and they have not whispered a word regarding redressal of their grievance before the competent authority under the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act, i.e. they have filed Form No. 7(a) under Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act, seeking grant of occupancy rights. When this fact has been specifically pointed out by the defendants-petitioners herein before the Trial Court, the Trial Court has rightly observed thus: "I do agree when the plaintiffs files Form No. 7(a) before the granting authority as tenant, they cannot file a suit for declaration claiming adverse possession". Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners submitted that, once the Trial Court has agreed on the basis of the pleadings and opined that plaintiffs files Form No. 7(a) before the Granting Authority as tenant and they cannot file a suit for declaration claiming adverse possession, it ought not to have proceeded further and rejected the stand taken by defendants-petitioners on hyper technical grounds. Even the Trial Court has failed to consider the reliance placed by the Counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1977) 4 SCC 487 (T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr.), where the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question as to when the Court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11(D) CPC and held that: The Trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful - no formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and merit less in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a Clause of action, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC an activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The cause of action is the cause which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. But, the Trial Court has not made any sincere efforts to find out the root cause for redressal of the grievance as made out by plaintiffs-respondents herein for seeking declaration and injunction. It is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for plaintiffs-respondents herein that, in fact, the plaintiffs-respondents herein have filed Form No. 7(a) under Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act, for grant of occupancy rights before the competent authority in respect of the same lands which are the subject matter of the suit. If that is so, it is duty cast on the plaintiffs-respondents and they ought to have disclosed this clinching relevant material which was within their knowledge before the Trial Court. But the plaintiffs-respondents herein intentionally and very cleverly have not whispered any word in the pleadings presented before the Court below for redressing their grievance. 7. Further, it is pertinent to note that, the Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 has held that, withholding of vital document relevant to litigation by the litigant is fraud on court and the guilty party is liable to be thrown out at any stage. Therefore, in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments that the persons who approach the Court, must approach with clean hands and state the true facts. But in the instant case, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiffs-respondents intentionally and deliberately have not disclosed the true facts before the Trial Court. But in the instant case, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiffs-respondents intentionally and deliberately have not disclosed the true facts before the Trial Court. When this fact has been pointed out by the defendants-petitioners herein in their written statement before the Trial Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, the Trial Court has not at all looked into the same and proceeded to pass the orders and without taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and Rules and thereby committed a grave error and mis carriage of justice. Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, I am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned orders passed by the Court below cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside at the threshold. 8. For yet another reason, the impugned orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside, is on the ground that, the Court below has not made any sincere efforts to point out that, a clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action and the same must be nipped it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC, when the Court itself has categorically stated and admitted that plaintiffs-respondents are redressing their grievances under the Land Reforms Act and the matter is seized. It is pertinent to note that, when plaintiffs-respondents are claiming registration of occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act, how can they institute the suit for adverse possession, that too, by suppressing the clinching material evidence which was not disputed by them. But this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Trial Court and it has failed to go into the root cause of the case in hand and there by committed a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside. 9. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the instant revision petition and writ petition filed by defendants-petitioners herein are allowed. 10. The order dated 23.10.2007 passed on Additional Issue No. 1 and on I.A. No. VII in O.S. No. 943/2002 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, are hereby set aside. 11. 10. The order dated 23.10.2007 passed on Additional Issue No. 1 and on I.A. No. VII in O.S. No. 943/2002 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, are hereby set aside. 11. Accordingly, the instant revision petition and writ petition filed by defendants-petitioners herein stand disposed of.