Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi, J. 1. Heard Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri P.K. Kesari, learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.5.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No.152 of 2011, whereby an application filed by the revisionists-defendants under Order VII Rule 11 (a) C.P.C. has been rejected. 3. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for injunction stating therein that on 23.10.2010 a sale deed of free hold plot no.TT/2/B, Civil Station, Allahabad comprising an area of 3250 sq. meters situate at Edmonston Road, Allahabad, (for short 'the property in dispute') was executed in its favour by one Radhekrishna Jaiswal s/o Sitaram Jaiswal, and since then the plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession thereof, and that the said property was earlier a part of vacant land of Bunglow Nos.14 and 16, Edmonston Road, Allahabad. It is further alleged that the revisionists-defendants have no concern with the property in dispute, yet they threatened to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-opposite party, when on 30.1.2011 plaintiff-respondent proceeded to carry out repairs of a dilapidated boundary wall. 4. An application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the C.P.C. was filed by the defendants-revisionists wherein it was admitted that they have no concern over the property in dispute. It was further stated that the house of the revisionists exists over plot no.TT/2/D and partly on TT/2/C, Civil Station, Allahabad and that he has no concern with the free hold plot no.TT/2/B, Civil Station, Allahabad. The Trial Court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the C.P.C. on the ground that the plaint discloses a cause of action to file a suit. 5. It is submitted by Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists that once the defendants in their application had stated that they have no concern over the property in dispute and, on the contrary, the plaintiff for ulterior and malafide reasons has sought injunction against them, then the plaint, as framed and filed, did not disclose any cause of action qua the revisionists and the court below ought to have rejected the plaint. 6. 6. It has been held in Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2003 SC 759 that a perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. makes it clear that the relevant facts, which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder, are the averments in the plaint and that the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are absolutely irrelevant at that stage. 7. A reading of the plaint allegations and, in particular, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 disclose a cause of action wherein it is stated that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plot in dispute since 23.10.2010 on the basis of a registered sale deed and the revisionists-defendants threatened to interfere in his peaceful possession on 30.1.2011, when the plaintiff proceeded to carry out the repairs/constructions of the surrounding dilapidated boundary wall. These averments are enough to confer a cause of action on the plaintiff to file the suit. No part of the defence taken by the defendant/revisionists can be considered to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) C.P.C. 8. The civil revision is dismissed. _