Judgment : Civil Revision petition is filed against the order dated 26. 2008 made in I.A.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.4966 of 2006 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track No.IV) Chennai. The revision petitioner/ petitioner/second defendant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 26. 2008 in I.A.No.4 0f 2008 in O.S.No. 4966 of 2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track No.IV) Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/second defendant to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w 151 CPC. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.4966of 2006 has inter alia opined that as per Clause 2 of the agreement, presumption as an agent, he cannot be compelled to disclose the original owner and he had got a every right to raise a cause of action on an agreement Ex A1 against the first defendant thereby the contention of the petitioner stating that non-disclosure of the original owner of bad in law and will not create any cause of action is not sustainable, now second defendant is in the possession of the property. The Ex A1 is the document created a cause of action and resultantly has dismissed the application. 3. The Ex A1 is the document created a cause of action and resultantly has dismissed the application. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant, the trial Court has failed to note that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant or the former owner of the suit property and in the absence of cause of action against the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant , the plaint has to be rejected as against the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant and there is no pleading or evidence to show that the sale agreement of plaintiff with the first defendant is binding upon the erstwhile owner of the suit property or the revision petitioner herein and this aspect has not been looked into proper prospective by the trial Court and further that the trial Court has committed an error in placing reliance upon Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, when no such case has been made out or pleaded by the plaintiff and further the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff claims independent title to the suit property, adverse to the title of the first defendant and therefore the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant is not bound by the agreement entered into by the first defendant and that the suit is barred by limitation as against the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant, since three years from the date of agreement has lapsed and therefore, prays for allowing this revision in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/caveator submits that the cause of action for maintaining the suit has already been mentioned in the plaint and that the revision petitioner/second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser and that the contentions that the agreement is vague, the suit claim being barred by limitation etc are necessarily to be gone into and to determine only at the time of trial of the case based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties and that the trial Court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the application and the same need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in revision. 5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advance by the learned counsel on both sides and notices their contentions. 6. 5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advance by the learned counsel on both sides and notices their contentions. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that the first respondent cannot press into service, the Sections 226 and 230 of the Indian Contract Act in the absence of pleading and that a reading of the plaint shows that no cause of action has been made out against the revision petitioner/second defendant and there is also no pleading in the plaint that the revision petitioner/second defendant is bound by the agreement and further that there is no pleading that the first defendant is an agent of the owner and therefore the trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.4966 of 2006 so as to meet the ends of justice. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/second defendant cites the decision reported in Kuok Oils & Grains PTE Ltd.v.Tower International Pvt.Ltd., (AIR 2005 Gujarat 9) wherein it is inter alia held that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to cause any claim against the applicant and if the plaintiff received less the quantity contracted for, plaintiff can have cause of action against the defendant vessel and the plaint is rejected so far as the applicant is concerned and meaningless and abortive litigation should not be permitted to occupy the time of Court. He further relies on the decision reported in ITC Limited-v-Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others(1998 (2) Supreme Court Cases, 70 at page 76 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: "We may state that in the context of Order 7Rule 11 CPC, a contention that once issues have been framed, the matter has necessarily to go to trial has been clearly rejected by this Court in Azhar Hussain .v. Rajiv Gandhi(SCC p.324) as follows:(SCC Para 12) "In substance, the argument is that the Court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only 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. 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 above said judgment which related to an election petition is clearly applicable to suits also and was followed in Samar Singh.v. Kedar Nath(1987 Supp.SCC 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 Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 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. The Principles regarding the payment of amounts covered by bank guarantee; 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.Coop. Federation Ltd.v. Singh Consultants & Engineers(P)Ltd (1988)1 SCC 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 Synathetics Ltd(AIR 1985 Cal.96) ( to 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 Letter 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. 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 Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 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(see T.Arivandandam. v T.V. Satyapal) (1977) 4 SCC 467 )" 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 cites the decision reported in C.Natarajan. 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(see T.Arivandandam. v T.V. Satyapal) (1977) 4 SCC 467 )" 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 cites the decision reported in C.Natarajan. vs.Ashim Bai and another(2008)1MLJ 1278(SC) whereby the Honourable Supreme Court has held that for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the suit cannot be dismissed without framing an issue on limitation and taking evidence and that Order 7, Rule 11(d) is not applicable. He also presses into service another decision reported in Prem Lala Nahata and another-v- Chandi Prasad Sikaria(2007(2) MLJ 1177 (SC) where under the Honourable Supreme Court has held that defect does not make suit, one barred by law or liable to rejection and the suit cannot be held to be barred for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action. 9. Admittedly, the first respondent has filed a suit originally against the first defendant (Sole defendant) and later first respondent has taken out an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the revision petitioner/second defendant and that has been allowed by the trial Court on 20.7.2007. The revision petitioner/second defendant has been added since she happens to be the purchaser of the same property to which the suit property relates to. 10. It is to be noted that the power to reject the plaint should be exercised by a Court of law only in a clear cases, if there is any serious question to be determined then the fair and prudent course will be to allow the suit to proceed further by means of filing the written statement, discovery etc., 11. It is represented on behalf of first respondent/plaintiff that I.A.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.4966 of 2006 for rejection of plaint has been taken out by the revision petitioner/second defendant before ever the first respondent can take necessary action for amending the plaint in the manner known to law. When the trial Court has allowed Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application for impleading the revision petitioner/second defendant, and before ever, the first respondent can venture to bring about the amendment to the plaint. When the trial Court has allowed Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application for impleading the revision petitioner/second defendant, and before ever, the first respondent can venture to bring about the amendment to the plaint. During the interregnum, the revision petitioner/second defendant has projected I.A.NO.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.4966 of 2006 for rejection of plaint. Admittedly, the second defendant is in possession of the property. 12. As far as the present case is concerned, on an over all assessment of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in regard to the rejection of the plaint plea, the Court has to go by the plaint pleadings of the plaintiff and even if there is any lacuna or defect in regard to the misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of cause of action, the said defect will not render a suit liable to be rejected either by law or by otherwise and the pleadings of the plaint requires in depth or detail examination by the trial Court in the main case through oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties and further first respondent has to amend the plaint in view of the fact that the second defendant is in possession of the property. In that view of the matter, this revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed to prevent aberration of justice. 13. In the result, this revision is dismissed, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.4966 of 2006 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. The first respondent/plaintiff is directed to file an amendment application to amend the plaint to make out the cause of action against the second defendant within seven days from today as per Civil Procedure Code. Liberty is given to the parties to raise all factual and legal contentions/controversies in the suit so that the same can be comprehensively and completely thrashed out so as to give a quietus to the disputes once for all in the interest of parties. The trial Court is also to frame necessary issues regarding the plea of limitation as soon as the the parties file their written statements. The trial Court is also to frame necessary issues regarding the plea of limitation as soon as the the parties file their written statements. Further the trial Court is also directed to provide opportunity to all the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence in regard to an additional issue to be framed in regard to the plea of limitation and to proceed with further in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.