JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court (the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar) dated 13.06.2016 rejecting Special Civil Suit No.213 of 2007. The Trial Court has, by the impugned judgment recorded on application Exh.41 filed by the defendant No.2, rejected the plaint under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. This being the First Appeal, the point for determination needs to be formulated by this Court. The point for determination, in the present Appeal is, whether the plaint of the present appellant needs to be rejected on the ground of, it not disclosing any cause of action against defendants No.1 and 2, as held by the Trial Court, on the application moved by the defendant No.2 invoking the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Heard learned advocates. 4. The material on record is also considered by the Court. 5. Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate for the appellant - original plaintiff has submitted that, the Trial Court fell in error while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff does not have any cause of action against the defendants No.1 and 2 and that the suit was in collusion with the defendant No.3. It is submitted that the suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was executed by defendant No.3 and it was the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had also orally agreed for the same. It is submitted that, on the face of these averments, the Trial Court could not have come to the conclusion that the plaint needs to be rejected. It is submitted that, an application under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the defendant No.2 before the Trial Court, should not have been entertained by the Trial Court. Learned advocate for the appellant has also taken this Court through the provision of the Code in this regard, to contend that, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. It is submitted that this appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Learned advocate for the appellant has also taken this Court through the provision of the Code in this regard, to contend that, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. It is submitted that this appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate for the contesting respondent - original defendant No.2 has submitted that, the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that, it was the case of the plaintiff that there was an agreement to sell of the suit land, in his favour, which was owned by the defendants No.1 and 2, the said agreement was executed by defendant No.3, on the basis of the power of attorney, claimed to have been in favour the defendant No.3, which was never given by the defendants No.1 and 2. It is submitted that thus the plaintiff could not and did not have any cause of action, qua the suit property, against the defendants No.1 and 2. It is submitted that the rejection of plaint by the Trial Court, in this factual background, may not be entertained and this Appeal be dismissed. 6.1 Without prejudice to the above submissions on merits, learned advocate for the contesting respondent has further submitted that, though the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given way back on 23.09.2014, the copy thereof was also served to the other side at the relevant time, an endorsement was also put thereon to the effect that reply needs to be filed, for years together, the same was not done by the plaintiff. It is submitted that even no submission was made, contesting the said application and ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed by the Trial Court on 13.06.2016 allowing the said application (Exh.41) and the suit was dismissed by rejecting the plaint. It is submitted that, when there was no contest before the Trial Court, this appeal may not be entertained on that count also. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 7.1 The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell. 7.2 The agreement to sell, the enforcement of which is asked for is dated 24.05.2004. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 7.1 The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell. 7.2 The agreement to sell, the enforcement of which is asked for is dated 24.05.2004. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the said agreement to sell was executed by defendant No.3 (Haresh Babulal Shah) in the capacity as power of attorney holder of one Chanchalben Bakorbhai Patel. The said power was given on 30.11.1982. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said land originally belonged to Chanchalben Bakorbhai Patel (the mother of the defendants No.1 and 2) who died in the year 1997. 7.3 As noted above, the agreement to sell, the enforcement of which is asked for by the plaintiff, is signed by the defendant No.3 on 24.05.2004. Thus, going by the averments in the plaint itself, the date on which the agreement to sell was allegedly signed by the defendant No.3, there was no valid power with him, to sign/execute any such agreement. The donor had died in the year 1997. 7.4 The suit property was inherited by defendants No.1 and 2, on the death of their mother in the year 1997 itself. The plaint contains averments in that regard as well. The conjoint reading of these averments makes it clear that, the suit property had stood transferred in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in the year 1997 and the defendant No.3, at no point of time was holding any power of attorney on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2 and thus, there could not be any cause of action by the plaintiff against defendants No.1 and 2, qua the suit property. 7.5 In view of above, the point for determination as noted in Para : 2 above is answered by holding that, there could not be any and there was not any cause of action for the plaintiff against defendants No.1 and 2, qua the suit property. On re-appreciating the entire material on record, this Court finds that, the Trial Court has rightly held that the plaint needs to be rejected, keeping in view the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed on merits. 8. On re-appreciating the entire material on record, this Court finds that, the Trial Court has rightly held that the plaint needs to be rejected, keeping in view the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed on merits. 8. There is an additional factor which would further tilt balance against the plaintiff - present appellant. It is noted that, it is a matter of record that, the defendant No.2 had given an application (Exh.41) under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the Trial Court on 23.09.2014. It was for rejection of plaint, on the grounds pleaded therein. There was an endorsement on behalf of the plaintiff on the said application dated 22.09.2014 that, reply needs to be filed, which was not filed by the plaintiff for about two years. No contest was put forward on behalf of the plaintiff in any other form also. Even legal submissions were not made at the time of hearing of the application. This is noted by the Trial Court in Para : 2 of the impugned order dated 13.06.2016. It is the appeal by the said plaintiff which is considered by this Court, and as held above, on merits it needs to be dismissed. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court, rejecting the plaint, need not be interfered with and this Appeal needs to be dismissed. 10. It is noted that after the judgment of the Trial Court dated 13.06.2016, the suit property was jointly sold to Mineshbhai Bhogilal Patel and Dipakbhai Chandulal Shah by a sale deed dated 16.08.2016, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar on 19.08.2016 with Registration No.11940. This fact is put on record of this Appeal by the said purchasers, by filing an Interim Application No. 01 of 2018. The said aspect is taken note of. No further order needs to be passed on the said application. 11. In view of above, the following order is passed. 11.1 First Appeal No.2119 of 2016 is dismissed. 11.2 The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No. 213 of 2007 dated 13.06.2016 is confirmed. 11.3 Civil Application No.9452 of 2016 would not survive and the same is disposed of. 11. In view of above, the following order is passed. 11.1 First Appeal No.2119 of 2016 is dismissed. 11.2 The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No. 213 of 2007 dated 13.06.2016 is confirmed. 11.3 Civil Application No.9452 of 2016 would not survive and the same is disposed of. 11.4 No order needs to be passed on Interim Application No.1 of 2018. The said application is disposed of, by taking note of the facts stated therein.