JUDGMENT Harish Tandon, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against Order No. 41, dated January 11, 2013, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 7 of 2012 by which an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for recovery of possession from the suit land upon determination of tenancy under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. 2. The defendant/petitioner, however, entered appearance by filing a written statement in order to contest the said suit. 3. Subsequently, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is taken out by the defendant/petitioner praying for rejection of the plaint. The said application contains as many as four paragraphs. 4. Paragraph 1, which is most relevant for the present purposes, contains the averment that the suit has been filed for recovery of the vacant piece of land and therefore, the property is governed by Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. 5. Paragraph 2 is consequential to the statements made in paragraph 1. 6. In paragraph 3 of the said application, the defendant/petitioner says that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the said suit because of the embargo created by law and paragraph 4 relates to the relief in the said application. 7. Apart there from, there is no other grounds taken for the purpose of rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Learned advocate, appearing for the defendant/petitioner audaciously submits that apart from the said ground, there are other grounds on which the plaint should be rejected. 9. I am afraid that the point which was not agitated before the Trial Court nor incorporated in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code should be allowed to be taken before the Revision Court, for the first time. 10. The second limb of submission of the learned advocate, appearing for the defendant/petitioner is that the impugned order suffers for want of reasons. 11. The Trial Court, while rejecting the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code has not assigned any reason. 12. This Court is not oblivion of the fact that the Court is required to assign the reasons either allowing the application or rejecting the same. 13. 11. The Trial Court, while rejecting the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code has not assigned any reason. 12. This Court is not oblivion of the fact that the Court is required to assign the reasons either allowing the application or rejecting the same. 13. The Revisional Court before which the order is brought, if ultimately founds that the conclusion which has been arrived by the Trial Court is correct, the Revisional Court can certainly supply the reasons. 14. Let me now proceed to deal with the said point which has been agitated in the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 15. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of a bare land upon determination of the lease by issuing a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The determination of the tenancy under section 106 of the said Act is one of the ground for determination of lease as would be envisaged under section 111 of the said Act. 16. It is unthinkable and inconceivable that such a suit would come within the ambit of Calcutta Thika Tenancy and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 or West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001. 17. The very definition assigned in the above Act relating to the Thika tenant pre-supposes the existence of a structure. 18. It is a settled law that the Court, while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, shall not look into any other material than the averments made in the plaint. 19. My endeavour has failed to find out any ground which would come within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code on meaningful reading of the averments made in the plaint. 20. The strange argument is sought to be made that the relationship between the Thika tenant and Bharatia shall be governed by West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, so, the suit under the Transfer of Property Act is not maintainable. 21. 20. The strange argument is sought to be made that the relationship between the Thika tenant and Bharatia shall be governed by West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, so, the suit under the Transfer of Property Act is not maintainable. 21. I am not at all impressed by the said submission, as the suit is instituted under the provision of Transfer of Property Act for recovery of possession of a bare land which neither comes within the purview of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 nor under the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which applies to the tenancy of the premises, the definition thereof envisages the existence of the building. 22. From the length and breadth of the said plaint, I do not find that there is any claim in respect of the structure being made therein, even the schedule appended to the plaint relates to land for which the recovery is sought. 23. Therefore, this Court finds that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is misconceived and has been made to delay the carriage of the suit. Such a frivolous application deserves dismissal, as has been done by the Trial Court but with exemplary costs. 24. The Trial Court, as it appears, shown the sympathetic approach in not awarding the costs which this Court cannot concur with. 25. Needless to mention, that the observation made hereinabove is restricted to the disposal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code and is mere tentative in nature and shall not have any persuasive effect upon the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. 26. The Trial Court is requested to make all efforts to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. 27. The Revisional Application is dismissed with costs assessed at 50 G.M. to be paid by the petitioner to the learned advocate, appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party in this Court, within a week from date. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis. Application dismissed