Judgment :- The revision petitioner/defendant/petitioner has projected this civil revision petition as against the order dated 24.06.2008 passed in I.A.No.714 of 2007 in O.S.No.211 of 2005 by the learned District Munsif Court, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant praying to reject the suit on the question of law. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.714 of 2007, has among other things observed that admittedly, the main suit in O.S.No.211 of 2005 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the capacity of the Administrator of the Estate of deceased M.A. Browne, for recovery of rent arrears and that the suit has been filed on 12.09.2005 before this Court and that the petitioner herein, the defendant of the main suit has filed written statement and after that issues have been framed by this Court on 9. 2006 and the case is posted for trial and subsequently, on 8. 2007 PW1 was examined in chief and the suit is posted for cross examination of PW1 etc. and resultantly, dismissed the application. 3. 2006 and the case is posted for trial and subsequently, on 8. 2007 PW1 was examined in chief and the suit is posted for cross examination of PW1 etc. and resultantly, dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is an abuse of process of law and if allowed to continue will result in miscarriage of justice and that the trial court should have seen that the cause of action arose on 26.09.1990 when the agreement of sale cum lease deed executed on behalf of the M.C.J.C. Longmore being an Administrator to the M.A. Browne Estate by this respondent as a Power of Attorney Agent and that the respondent/ plaintiff who himself is the author of the lease cum agreement of sale deed having executed the deed on behalf of M.A.Browne Estates Administrator M.C.J.C. Longmore has cunningly filed the present suit for recovery of arrears of rent by fraudulently omitting his principal name in the cause title and thus he has acted in unfair manner and came to the Court with unclean hands and moreover, the respondent /plaintiff in the rent eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2005 has specifically admitted this fact in para 7 of the said petition and the trial Court ought to have perused the entire connected pleadings properly, judicious manner and allowed the petition and that the suit and the rent control proceedings projected by the respondent in the capacity of an Administrator to the estate of M.A. Browne is subject matter of dispute in O.P.No.34 of 2004 and the said issue is now pending before this Court in C.R.P.No.1368 of 2008 and moreover, an Administrator to the estate of the deceased cannot be sub delegate his powers and the petition in R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2005 has been filed on the basis of alleged lease cum sale agreement and these facts have not been looked into by the trial Court and therefore, the order passed by it, is perverse, illegal and granting premium to the illegality and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 4. 4. In I.A.No.714 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner/defendant, it is inter alia mentioned that the suit O.S.No.211 of 2005 is not maintainable as the said M.C.J.C. Longmore does not derive any powers from the estate of deceased M.A. Browne nor he is a legal heir of the deceased Mary Aline Browne and further the said M.C.J.C. Longmore has not produced any document in the suit to show that he is entitled to file the suit and when the respondent /plaintiff has arrayed the said M.C.J.C. Longmore as his principal and as an alleged Power Agent has projected a suit and when the said Longmore has himself not entitled and not having any legal right to claim any arrears of rent, there is no question of giving power to third person and even assuming the said M.C.J.C. Longmore is the delegate of the estate of deceased Mary Aline Browne, he cannot further sub-delegate his powers, since a delegate himself cannot sub-delegate his powers to another and further that the revision petitioner has entered into a lease agreement on 211. 1990 with the endorsement for lease of the schedule property on condition and proposal to purchase the suit property and whereas the respondent has also agreed and accepted the same and that the respondent has agreed and permitted to renovate and carryout improvements in the suit property inclusive of demolition and reconstruction of any portion which requires at the cost of the petitioner and this itself impliedly shows that the agreement is presumed and construed to be an agreement for sale of the suit property rather than lease agreement etc. and even in the rejoinder dated 01.06.2005 sent by the respondent, the said fact has been admitted etc. 5. The further plea of the revision petitioner is that one Mrs. Elezabeth Anthony has also got a Will in regard to the suit property and as such there is a dispute in regard to the title and ownership of the suit property and pending the same, the respondent cannot claim any right over the suit property and that he has paid a sum of Rs.35,000/-on behalf of the respondent to one Louis, who was a previous tenant in one of the houses in the suit property and to vacate him and not as a security deposit and since 211. 1990 he has been paying all the necessary water, property and land taxes to the concerned authorities till date without fail. 6. In short, the plea of the revision petitioner is that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondent and as such, the respondent has no locus standi to file the suit against him and therefore, prays to reject the suit O.S.No.211 of 2005 pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, on the question of law. 7. The stand of the respondent/plaintiff in the counter is that the respondent has filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.37,000/-for the period from 8. 2002 to 30.06.2005 due to the estate of M.A.Browne deceased as the Administrator as early as July 2005 and that the suit was decreed exparte on 20.2.2006 since the petitioner/ defendant did not file written statement and later on, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant to set aside the exparte decree, the exparte decree was set aside on payment of cost of Rs.250/- and that the suit has been posted in the special list for trial and respondent/ plaintiffs proof affidavit as evidence in chief has been filed on 8. 2007 and Exs.A.1 to A3 were marked and the same was posted for cross examination and now the matter stands adjourned to 16.08.2007 and that the petitioner/defendant having taken the premises on rent from the respondent on lease agreement on 211. 1990 is not entitled to question the respondent/plaintiff and that the Court has to try the suit and decide the same on merits and that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code have no application at all and that the said application filed only to drag on the proceedings. 8. 1990 is not entitled to question the respondent/plaintiff and that the Court has to try the suit and decide the same on merits and that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code have no application at all and that the said application filed only to drag on the proceedings. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relies on the decision in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another V. Indusind Bank Limited and others (2005-3-L.w.403) wherein the Honble Supreme Court has inter alia observed that "the expression "acts" in O.3, 5.R.2 of Civil Procedure Code would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal - If the power of attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him -He cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge." 9. It cannot be gainsaid that Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code in regard to rejection of Plaint is a mere procedure. An application for rejection of plaint can be decided by a Court of Law in view of the averments made in the plaint. As a matter of fact, in order to decide whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not, a Court has to see only the averments in the plaint and the supporting documents relied upon in the plaint etc. Moreover, while disposing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code in rejecting the plaint, the Court has to presume the facts stated in the plaint to be corrected and the Court cannot for deciding the said application look into the defense projected by the defendants. If there is any serious issue to be decided, the right course for the Court is to leave the suit to proceed further in regard to the filing of written statement and discovery and later determine the same in accordance with law. Legally speaking, Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code is not available where triable issues have arisen, in the considered opinion of this Court. Suffice it to point out that a plaintiff in a suit has to show he has a right to sue. Legally speaking, Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code is not available where triable issues have arisen, in the considered opinion of this Court. Suffice it to point out that a plaintiff in a suit has to show he has a right to sue. Dismissal of plaint at the very early stage, we lead to very serious consequences. 10. In the instant case on hand, the respective parties have made conflicting claims which require in depth determination in regard to the examination of rival stand of the parties and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected as per Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Moreover, in view of the divergent stand taken by the parties in the present case, they do raise arguable points and the same cannot be rejected in limini. Added further, the pleas taken by the petitioner/defendant in I.A.No.714 of 2007 revolve on mixed question of fact and law and these require to be decided only by means of a trial of the suit. 11. Looking at from any point of view, this Court is the view that the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the I.A.No.714 of 2007 inter alia observing that the pleas taken by the revision petitioner are mixed question of fact and law cannot be said to be a perverse and arbitrary one but the same is legal and proper based on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court and resultantly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.714 of 2007 is confirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. It is open to the respective parties to raise all questions/contentions/objections in the main suit and since the suit is in part heard stage from 07.08.2007, this Court issues a direction to the trial Court viz., the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam to dispose of the main case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court. The parties are directed to lend their cooperation for the completion of the suit proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.