ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 10.7.2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which was further extended for a further limited period. 2. C.R.P.M.P.No.4729 of 2008 is filed praying for vacation of the interim stay granted on 10.7.2008 in C.R.P.No.2636 of 2008. When the vacate stay application is taken up for hearing, the counsel representing the parties to the civil revision petition made a request for final disposal of the civil revision petition. The counsel on record also made elaborate submissions putting forth their respective stands. 3. The present civil revision petition is filed by Mohd. Abdul Wahab, the revision petitioner-first defendant, being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No.84 of 2007 in O.S.No.51 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar. 4. Respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit, State Bank of Hyderabad, main branch, Mahabubnagar, represented by Chief Manager, Mahabubnagar. The said application was filed by the revision petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience) praying for rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.51 of 2005 aforesaid. The respondent-plaintiff showing defendants 1 to 3 in the plaint filed the said suit, but however, claiming the relief as against the first defendant only showing the other parties as proforma parties. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar, by order dated 11th day of March 2008, having appreciated the respective stands taken in the affidavit filed in support of the application and in the counter, came to the conclusion that it appears the petitioner intends to drag on the proceedings of the suit on some pretext or another and ultimately dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred. 5. Sri Noushad Ali, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties in the suit and also the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for rejection of plaint and the stand taken in the counter and further had drawn the attention of this Court to the decree made in O.S.No.13 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, and also further pointed to the order made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.23577 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.3725 of 2004 in W.P.No.17986 of 2004 and would maintain that in the light of these admitted facts, even if the averments made in the plaint to be taken into consideration, the suit is clearly barred by lack of cause of action and also further barred by virtue of bar of operation of law i.e., Section 11 or Order II Rule 2 of the Code. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also would maintain that it is not as though there was only just an order of default in the prior suit, the same was proceeded with further and by virtue of Order IX Rule 11 of the Code an order was made dismissing the suit as against this revision petitioner and, when that being so, now it cannot be permitted on the part of respondent-plaintiff to contend otherwise so as to take shelter under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code. The learned counsel also had specifically pointed out to the relevant portion of the plaint where the averments were made relating to the institution of the prior suit O.S.No.13 of 2000 and the dismissal of the said suit for default on 13.10.2000 for non-payment of process and for not taking steps for service of summons. Hence, the learned counsel would maintain that in such circumstances when the suit is clearly barred by law, even as per the averments made in the plaint, and also suffers from serious infirmity of lack of cause of action, since second suit cannot be instituted on the strength of the same cause of action, it will be a futile exercise to permit the respondent-plaintiff to further proceed with the suit and, hence, this application was filed praying for rejection of the plaint. The counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the order made by the leaned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar, and would maintain that in the light of the clear language of Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code the plaint is liable to be rejected on these specific grounds. The learned counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Code and further placed reliance on certain decisions. 6. Per contra, Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent would maintain that it is not a case where the revision petitioner had moved this application at the threshold. This application had been thought of after the evidence of the plaintiff side had been closed and when the matter was coming up for defendants' evidence. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel laid emphasis on the language employed in Order IX Rule 4 of the Code and also would maintain that this specific plea had been pleaded in the plaint and in the light of such averments made in the plaint it cannot be said that the plaint can be rejected on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action. The counsel also pointed out to the relevant para where the cause of action had been pleaded and whether the said stand taken is legally tenable or not may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also had read the relevant portions of specific averments made in the plaint and would maintain that the circumstances, which ultimately paved the way in the institution of the present suit, had been explained by respondent-plaintiff in the plaint. The learned counsel also would maintain that whether the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience), whether would be available to the banking institution or not, these questions may have to be decided by the learned Division Bench. But, these proceedings under the Act stand on a different footing and, hence, the said questions may not come in the way of further prosecuting the suit, since these are independent proceedings and the banking institution is entitled to invoke such remedies, which are available to the said institution under law. At any rate, the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar, this is not a fit case to be interfered with by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 7. Heard the counsel, perused the respective pleadings placed before this Court and also the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for rejection of plaint and the averments made in the counter and the findings recorded by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar, in the impugned order. 8. The petitioner-defendant No.1 filed an application I.A.No.84 of 2007 in O.S.No.51 of 2005 aforesaid under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code to reject the plaint in O.S.No.51 of 2005 aforesaid. It is the case of the revision petitioner-first defendant that the third defendant, the principal borrower, had approached respondent-plaintiff bank for cash credit for his business purpose and he had offered his immovable properties, godown and shops as security for the aforesaid loan by way of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. It is also his case that respondent-plaintiff bank got certain documents executed and certain other blank documents also had been obtained. It is further stated that the plaintiff-bank had assured that the loan amount will be realized after completion of all formalities and the third defendant, under the bona fide impression, signed the said documents. The petitioner also was compelled to sign on letter of waiver, memorandum of deposit of title deeds and certain other documents. In fact, the plaintiff-bank never sanctioned and released the amount in favour of the third defendant and the third defendant never availed the loan amount. The petitioner and the second defendant had created equitable mortgage in advance. The petitioner is under no obligation to repay the loan amount, as the said amount was neither released nor paid. Respondent-plaintiff never extended the alleged loan amount credit facility. The petitioner and the second defendant had created equitable mortgage in advance. The petitioner is under no obligation to repay the loan amount, as the said amount was neither released nor paid. Respondent-plaintiff never extended the alleged loan amount credit facility. Further, it is his case that respondent-plaintiff earlier filed O.S.No.13 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, for recovery of loan amount of Rs.4,55,045-98 ps. against all the defendants. The said suit was dismissed against the petitioner, the first defendant in the present suit, on 13.10.2000 for not taking steps. The principal borrower appeared and the other guarantor remained ex parte and the suit was decreed on 26.11.2002. After obtaining the preliminary decree, the plaintiff-bank filed I.A.No.386 of 2003 for restoration of suit against him condoning the delay. The said application also was dismissed on 15.6.2004 for non-payment of process fee and non- representation. Thus, the dismissal of the suit and the order made in the said application became final. It is also his case that respondent-plaintiff bank had invoked the provisions of Section 13 of the Act for sale of his property through notice dated 01.02.2003 and, hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.26775 of 2003 challenging the validity of the said Act, but however, the said writ petition was dismissed on 21.4.2004 holding that the Apex Court already upheld the constitutional validity of the said Act and, hence, the writ petition cannot be maintained. The respondent-plaintiff bank had issued another Notice dated 02.9.2004 for sale of the suit property in public auction and the present petitioner had challenged the said notice before this Court by filing W.P.No.17986 of 2004 on the ground that the plaintiff cannot invoke the provisions of the Act after dismissal of the suit in his favour in O.S.No.13 of 2000. It is stated that interim stay of sale had been granted and the stay was made absolute on 18.01.2005 and the said proceedings are still pending. The order made by the Division Bench on 18th day of January 2005 in W.P.M.P.No.23577 of 2004 in W.V.M.P.No.3725 of 2004 in W.P.No.17986 of 2004 reads as hereunder. "We have gone through the decision reported in HOTEL RAJAHAMSA INTERNATIONAL Vs. The order made by the Division Bench on 18th day of January 2005 in W.P.M.P.No.23577 of 2004 in W.V.M.P.No.3725 of 2004 in W.P.No.17986 of 2004 reads as hereunder. "We have gone through the decision reported in HOTEL RAJAHAMSA INTERNATIONAL Vs. A.O., INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, VIJAYAWADA ( 2004 (5) ALD 517 ) and Section 35 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). As the matter requires consideration of the question whether after dismissal of the suit against the petitioner, respondent can still invoke the provisions of the Act, we are not inclined to vacate the interim order and would proceed to confirm the same by allowing WPMP.No.23577 of 2004 and dismissing WVMP.No.3725 of 2004, making it clear that the respondent-bank shall stand restrained from enforcing its remedies against the petitioner alone. This order will not prevent the respondent Bank from enforcing its remedy against the other two debtors. It is also directed that petitioner shall not transfer or create any third party interest in the property." 9. It appears respondent-plaintiff banking institution having realized some difficulty in realizing the amount had thought of instituting the present suit against the petitioner showing him as first defendant and showing the other defendants as proforma defendants for recovery of Rs.8,77,193/- with future interest. A written statement in detail had been filed. The petitioner also preferred C.R.P.No.1012 of 2006 to stay further proceedings in the suit. While disposing of the said C.R.P on 21.6.2006 this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the original court. It is also his case that in O.S.No0.13 of 2000 this petitioner was shown as guarantor and the suit against him was dismissed and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, passed preliminary decree against D-1 and D-3 therein and the present petitioner was shown as D-2 in the said suit, but his properties were included in the prior suit as well. The said decree became final. The said decree became final. Thus, it is the specific stand taken by the petitioner that the cause of action accrued as against him had been availed by the respondent-plaintiff bank by filing a suit O.S.No.13 of 2000 and further the respondent-plaintiff had an opportunity to proceed against him, but had not chosen to do so and no leave or permission had been obtained either under Order II Rule 2 of the Code or otherwise and without disclosing any cause of action the present suit had been instituted. 10. The cause of action, if any, as against the petitioner had been already exhausted by the respondent-banking institution by instituting O.S.No.13 of 2000 and, hence, there is no question of instituting yet another suit by pleading the second cause of action. Hence, it is the specific stand taken by the revision petitioner that both on the ground of lack of cause of action and also on the ground that even on the strength of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the suit being barred by virtue of Section 11 of the Code and Order II Rule 2 of the Code the plaint to be rejected. 11. A counter in detail had been filed by respondent-plaintiff bank denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The inconsistent stand taken had been referred to and further it was stated that the mere fact that the suit O.S.No.13 of 2000 had been decreed as against the other defendants and the mere fact that an order was made in I.A.No.386 of 2003 this cannot be said to have attained finality in the light of the Order IX Rule 4 of the Code and further the order made in C.R.P.No.1012 of 2006 also had been referred to and specific stand had been taken that the institution of the present suit and the proceedings pending under the Act which had been challenged by way of writ proceeding, these are two different proceedings and from the beginning the petitioner had been trying to prolong the matter and at any rate these questions may have to be decided in the main suit and, hence, absolutely there are no grounds to reject the plaint at this stage. Further, it is stated that the application is not bona fide. Further, it is stated that the application is not bona fide. The series of events also had been narrated in detail and ultimately the dismissal of the application had been prayed for. 12. The learned Judge formulated the point for consideration at para 4, recorded reasons at paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 and ultimately dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred. 13. It is not in serious controversy the suit is a part-heard one. Several of the facts relating to the institution of the prior suit, the dismissal of the prior suit as against the revision petitioner for non-prosecution, whatever the reason may be, and the dismissal of the application and the said order having attained finality, these aspects are not in serious controversy between the parties. The pendency of W.P.No.17986 of 2004 and the order made by the Division Bench in W.P.M.P.No.23577 of 2004 in W.V.M.P.No.3725 of 2004, which had been already specified above, also is not in dispute. 14. It is no doubt true that the question which may have to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the pending writ petition is whether the provisions of the Act can be invoked after the suit O.S.No.13 of 2000 had been dismissed as against the revision petitioner-first defendant in the suit. It is needless to say that the remedy available to the banking institution under the Act and the remedy available for recovery of amount by instituting a regular suit before a civil court, these are independent remedies. However, the principal question which had been argued in elaboration is that the plaintiff- banking institution having availed cause of action as against the revision petitioner also as one of the defendants in O.S.No.13 of 2000 and having been unsuccessful can on the same cause of action yet another suit be permitted to be instituted and permitted to be proceeded with further. 15. Incidentally, in the light of the prior proceedings submissions were made relating to the applicability of the bar by virtue of Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code deals with rejection of plaint. 15. Incidentally, in the light of the prior proceedings submissions were made relating to the applicability of the bar by virtue of Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code deals with rejection of plaint. Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code specifies "the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- where it does not disclose a cause of action" Likewise (d) specifies "the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law" The words "the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law" would assume importance. It may be appropriate to have a glance at the relevant averments made in the plaint in this regard. "The defendants have committed breach of terms of loan and failed to pay the loan amount. The plaintiff bank got issued legal notice on 02.11.1999 and demanded for payment of loan amount. The defendants have failed to pay the said amount. The plaintiff therefore filed suit O.S.No.13/2000 against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.4,55,045-98 ps. The defendant No.3 herein contested said suit and defendant No.2 herein (who are defendant Nos.1 and 3) remained ex parte in the said suit. The suit against defendant No.1 herein (defendant No.2 in O.S.13/2000) was dismissed for default on 13.10.2000 for non- payment of process and for not taking steps for the service of summons. Thus, the suit against defendant No.1 herein was dismissed under Rule 2 of Order 9 C.P.C. The suit against defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 herein was decreed on 26.11.2002 and preliminary decree was passed. The C.C. of judgment passed in said suit is filed herewith to prove said fact. The mortgage property jointly owned by defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein. In view of dismissal of suit against defendant No.1 herein for default, the plaintiff is not in a position to seek passing of final decree against defendant No.1 herein through decree in O.S.13/2000. The plaintiff has also invoked the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 against the defendants. In view of dismissal of suit against defendant No.1 herein for default, the plaintiff is not in a position to seek passing of final decree against defendant No.1 herein through decree in O.S.13/2000. The plaintiff has also invoked the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 against the defendants. The defendant No.1 filed writ petition in High Court of A.P. and challenged the action of plaintiff on the ground that the suit O.S.13/2000 filed against him was dismissed and the bank has no right to proceed against him. The defendants have colluded and taking said pleas to evade payment of due amount to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 being guarantor to the loan and mortgaged properties in favour of plaintiff bank, is jointly and severally liable to pay entire amount to the plaintiff bank along with defendant Nos.2 and 3, with contractual rate of interest @ 18.25% p.a. with quarterly rests. The plaintiff is entitled to file fresh suit against the defendant No.1 in view of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. as the claim against the defendant No.1 is not barred by limitation. The suit loan was sanctioned on 21.5.1996 and it was repayable on demand. The plaintiff bank got issued legal notice on 02.11.1999 and demanded for the payment of loan amount. Thus the suit can be filed within 12 years from said date as the amount become payable on said date. Hence the present suit is not barred against the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has added defendant Nos.2 and 3 as proforma parties, though no relief is sought." 16. It is no doubt true that in the written statement several pleas had been taken inclusive of the operation of bar by virtue of Section 11 of the Code and also Order II Rule 2 of the Code. It is needless to say that these are the valid legal defences taken in the written statement. Likewise, in para 4 of the plaint in the cause of action it was specified that the cause of action to the suit arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and the value of the suit is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court and hence this court is competent to entertain the present suit. Likewise, in para 4 of the plaint in the cause of action it was specified that the cause of action to the suit arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and the value of the suit is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court and hence this court is competent to entertain the present suit. It is also pertinent to note that in para 2 of the plaint it was averred that the facts stated in para 1 of the plaint constitute cause of action to the suit. The dates of cause of action are 21.5.1996, when the suit loan was sanctioned and when the defendants have executed necessary documents and created equitable mortgage, 02.11.1999 when the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to pay the loan amount and last week of December, 2004 when the plaintiff bank has made final demand to the defendant No.1 for payment of suit amount. The place of cause of action is Mahabubnagar (Vg.), Mandal and Dist. where the mortgage property is situated. 17. In M.V. "Sea Success I" V. Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. And another1 The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed at para 51 as hereunder. "The cause of action has a well defined legal connotation, though not defined, which means bundle of essential facts, if traversed, has to be proved by the plaintiff to entitle him to the relief. It reflects to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. It does not comprise every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact, which is necessary to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to the decree. The consistent legal position which is also mandatorily enacted by Order 7, Rule 11 (a) CPC is, that the Court must reject the plaint, which does not disclose cause of action. Obviously there is a difference between the non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint and the absence of cause of action for the suit. The ground for rejection of plaint is failure to disclose a cause of action and not that there is no cause of action for the suit. It is not competent for the Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations constituting he cause of action. The ground for rejection of plaint is failure to disclose a cause of action and not that there is no cause of action for the suit. It is not competent for the Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations constituting he cause of action. In other words, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations constituting the cause of action is beyond the purview of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) CPC. However, to find out whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, the Court has to consider the allegations made in the plaint intelligently and meaningfully and need not be influenced by ingenious and clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action. The ritual of repeating a word or creation of an illusion in the plaint can certainly be unraveled and exposed by the Court while dealing with an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (a). The Court must scan and scrutinize the allegations made in the plaint to find out whether forensic cleverness while drafting the plaint has been employed to get out of clutches of Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. and if on a careful scan and scrutiny of the pleading the conclusion of the Court is in affirmative, the consequence of rejection of plaint must follow., The Court has to see while exercising its power for rejection of plaint, which it must whether, the allegations in the plaint as they stand, fail to prove the cause of action. While considering the question whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not, the Court has to find out from the allegations made in the plaint itself and not beyond it as to whether a bogus, wholly vexatious or frivolous litigation has been initiated by the plaintiff or that the claim made by the plaintiff is a legally recognizable claim. What is required to be disclosed by the plaintiff is a clear right to sue and failure to do so must necessarily entail in rejection of the plaint." 18. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. And others V. Owners & parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others2 the Apex Court held as hereunder. "So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. "So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the present case, the averments made in the plaint, as has been noticed by us, do disclose the cause of action and, therefore, the High Court has rightly said that the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code cannot be exercised for rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants." 19. Reliance also was placed on the decision in Kammila Damodar Rao V. Jillepalli Thandava Krishna Murthy and another3 wherein the learned Judge while dealing with an application for rejection of plaint held that the same to be filed at threshold, before any major steps taken in the suit and such an exercise can be undertaken even at a later stage, but only when it is established that plaint was patently defective and such defect could not be noticed at initial stages and rejection of plaint must be on the grounds specifed in Order 7 Rule 11. Benefit of doubt, if any, must be extended to plaintiff, as power of a civil court to adjudicate civil dispute is unfettered, except where such jurisdiction is specifically taken away, by law. 20. No doubt, submissions in elaboration were made in relation to the scope and ambit of Order IX Rule 4 and Order IX Rule 11 of the Code as well. These aspects in the context of Order II Rule 2 of the Code and also Section 11 of the Code may have to be decided at the appropriate stage. Even the question whether this would constitute second cause of action, whether it is permissible in law, these aspects also may have to be decided at the appropriate stage. It cannot be said that the plaint is bared either for lack of cause of action or the plaint is barred by virtue of any legal bar either under Order VII Rule 11 (a) or (d) of the Code. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the other aspects, since these are all questions, which may have to be decided in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the other aspects, since these are all questions, which may have to be decided in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties. Inasmuch as an application of this nature to be decided in the light of the averments made in the plaint and the plaint alone this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 21. Accordingly, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. However, liberty is given to the parties to agitate all these questions before the original court.