Judgment The above Petition challenges the Order dated 20.09.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Panaji, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be rejected. 2. The Respondent no.1 filed a suit against the Petitioner and others on the ground that the eviction order obtained by the Petitioner from the Rent Controller against the defendant no.2 in the suit is to be declared null and void and without any legal effects as, according to the Respondent no.1, such Order has been obtained by fraud and collusion and without making the Respondent no.1 as a party thereof. 3. Shri D' Silva, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned Order and pointed out that the plaint filed by the Respondent no.1 deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 56 of the Goa Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1968. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent no.1 has already availed a remedy by filing an Appeal before the Administrative Tribunal against the Order of eviction and, as such, the question of proceeding with the suit on such ground does not arise at all. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of the provisions of Section 56 of the Rent Control Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit and, as such, the plaint deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent no.1 was a sub-tenant of the suit premises and, as such, any Decree obtained against the Original Defendant no.2 is binding on the Respondent no.1. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Rent Control Act is a complete Code by itself and, as such, the question of invoking the jurisdiction by the Civil Court, does not arise at all. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has relied upon the Judgments of the learned Single Judge reported in 1991 (1) G.L.T. 286, in the case of Shri Yogesh Mallick vs. Smt. Adelaide Afonso. 4. The Respondents though served, failed to remain present. 5. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has relied upon the Judgments of the learned Single Judge reported in 1991 (1) G.L.T. 286, in the case of Shri Yogesh Mallick vs. Smt. Adelaide Afonso. 4. The Respondents though served, failed to remain present. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order has come to the conclusion that there are specific allegations in the plaint at para 16 and 17 to the effect that there was fraud and collusion on the part of the parties to the proceedings before the Rent Controller in obtaining the eviction Order. The learned Judge has further come to the conclusion that the said aspects of fraud and collusion can be agitated before the Civil Court. On perusal of the plaint and considering the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, I find that taking note of the fact that the allegations made by the Respondent no.1 in the plaint are that the Order of eviction obtained by the Petitioner is on the ground of fraud and collusion, such disputes can be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The veracity of such allegations in any event, are matters which would have to be adjudicated by the Civil Court after recording of evidence. 6. The contention of Shri D' Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner to the effect that the Rent Control Act is a complete Code and, as such there is no question of invoking the Civil Court's jurisdiction otherwise normally acceptable. But, however, in the present case, taking into consideration the fact that the allegations in the plaint are that there is fraud and collusion committed by the parties to the said proceedings, I find that the learned Judge has rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is well settled that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, only the averments in the plaint are material. As such, reading the plaint as a whole, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the Respondent is barred under any specific provisions of law. It is well settled that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, only the averments in the plaint are material. As such, reading the plaint as a whole, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the Respondent is barred under any specific provisions of law. No doubt, the correctness of the allegations of the Respondent no.1 will have to be decided by the learned Judge on its own merits after framing of issues and recording of evidence. As such, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shri Yogesh Mallick vs. Smt. Adelaide Afonso. (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the case. The observations made therein are in the context as to whether the authorities under the Rent Control Act is not a Civil Court which is amenable to a revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. This is not the case in the present proceedings. 7. In view of the above, I find that the learned Judge has not committed any jurisdictional error whilst passing the impugned Order and dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. As such, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned Order by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, the Petition stands dismissed.