ORDER : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 18/19.1.2019 passed below Exh. 63 in Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 2013. 2. The case of the applicants - original defendants is that based upon agreement to sell which is merely signed by the father, who died in 2007, a suit came to be filed based upon said agreement to sell which is neither registered nor adequately stamped and there appears to be a fraudulent transaction, pursuant to the said agreement to sell. 3. It has been submitted that the suit which has been filed in the year 2013 is hopelessly time barred. As a result of this, for want of cause of action as well as for the reason that the suit is time barred and not filed within a period of 3 years, an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC came to be submitted. It has also been submitted that the agreement to sell has also not been registered, as a result of this no specific performance is possible for claiming out of said agreement and hence, the Order 7, Rule 11(d) application ought to have been considered by the court below. It has further been the case of the applicants that this is nothing but a classic example of clever drafting just with a view to bring the suit within a period of limitation. Since the learned Judge has not considered the claim and rejected the application, said order is made the subject-matter of present Civil Revision Application. 4. Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, has vehemently contended that there appears to be a complete non-application of mind on the part of learned Judge in not appreciating the very object of Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. It has further been contended that the agreement to sell which is produced by the applicants at page 56 of revision petition compilation is apparently on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- and it is not registered one and signed by only the father. It has further been contended that the agreement to sell which is produced by the applicants at page 56 of revision petition compilation is apparently on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- and it is not registered one and signed by only the father. Even the person who said to have purchased the land pursuant to this, has also not signed on the said document and on the basis of such document, the suit is filed in the year 2013. As a result of this, such agreement is unenforceable in the eyes of law, the learned Judge ought to have considered the same. Additionally, the cause of action which has been spelt out in the plaint itself is also not sufficient enough to sustain the main proceedings. As a result of this, relying upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 : ( AIR 2012 SC 206 ), a contention is raised that the order passed by the court below is required to be quashed and set aside. No other submissions have been made. 5. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the applicants and having gone through the material on record, ex facie it appears that the learned Judge has exercised the discretion vested in it, by assigning cogent reasons and particularly, after giving a specific conclusion that so far as the grievance which has been pressed for the limitation, wherein the specific issue having been framed at Exh. 24, the power under Order 7, Rule 11(d) does not require to be exercised, more particularly when the issue of law of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. As a result of this, the learned Judge has not exercised the discretion in favour of the applicants. 6. Apart from that, even the learned Judge has in its order has considered the decision delivered by this Court rendered in Civil Revision Application No. 409 of 2017, decided on 8.1.2018 and thereafter, after considering that also, it has been found that no case is made out and rejected the plaint at this stage. This is more so in view of the fact that the trial of the suit has commenced and Exh. This is more so in view of the fact that the trial of the suit has commenced and Exh. 5 application has already been decided and since the trial has commenced, the learned Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction in favour of the applicants, by assigning cogent reasons. This Court is unable to accept the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicants, more particularly when the issue of limitation is already taken care of by framing the specific issue at Exh. 24. As a result of this, instead of throttling the plaint at this stage, when the trial has commenced, the Court is of the considered opinion that the discretion which has been exercised does not require to be interfered with. 7. Additionally, the Court is also of the opinion that since the trial has commenced and the application has been filed at a much belated stage, the same is not required to be entertained. As a result of this, such belated attempt deserves to be discouraged. Further, the Court is also of the opinion that the cause of action is nothing, but a bundle of facts and, therefore, the cause of action or joinder or misjoinder of party, cannot be made the subject matter of exercise of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, as has been decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2960 of 2019, dated 13.3.2019 (Reported in AIR 2019 SC 1430 ). Relevant observations contained in the said decision are in Paras 6.2 to 6.8 are reproduced hereinafter: "6.2 While considering the scope and ambit of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, few decisions of this Court on Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC are required to be referred to and considered. 6.3 In the case of T. Arivandandam ( AIR 1977 SC 2421 ) (supra), while considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC and the decree of the trial Court in considering such application, this Court in para 5 has observed and held as under: "5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits....." 6.4 In the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society ( AIR 2012 SC 3912 , para 8) (supra), this Court in para 13 has observed and held as under: "13. While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Plaintiff the right to relief against the Defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the Plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words "cause of action". A cause of action must include some act done by the Defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue." 6.5 In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem ( AIR 1989 SC 1239 ) (supra), this Court explained the meaning of "cause of action" as follows: "12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. 6.6 In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable ( AIR 2004 SC 1801 ) (supra) in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed as under: "11. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ (1998) 2 SCC 70 : ( AIR 1998 SC 634 ] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code. 12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal ( AIR 1977 SC 2421 ) (supra)." 6.7 In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy ( AIR 2017 SC 2653 , para 8) (supra), this Court has observed and held as under: "7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC can be exercised. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage." 6.8 In the case of Ram Singh ( AIR 1986 SC 2197 ) (supra), this Court has observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation." 8. Having considered this and after giving anxious thought to the order in question, the Court is of the opinion that the suit since has commenced its adjudication, no interception is required to be made. 9. The Court while sitting in revisional jurisdiction is not also inclined to exercise in the absence of any perversity or material irregularity. A bare reading of the order is indicating that after proper application of mind and after giving proper opportunity to the parties and after considering the stage of the suit, the trial court has exercised the discretion not in favour of the applicants. Therefore, the conclusion which has been arrived at even if found to be not in consonance with the record and stand of the applicants, the Court would not like to substitute such conclusion at this stage of the proceeding. On the contrary, this suit of 2013 deserves to be attended promptly. As a result of this, without interfering with the order impugned, the Court is of the opinion that the applicants and respondents shall co-operate with the hearing of the main proceedings. 10. On the contrary, this suit of 2013 deserves to be attended promptly. As a result of this, without interfering with the order impugned, the Court is of the opinion that the applicants and respondents shall co-operate with the hearing of the main proceedings. 10. Though this application can be given at any stage of the proceedings, but here in a peculiar set of circumstance when the issues have been framed with regard to the grievance which has been made, the Court is not inclined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction and hence, no case is made out to call for any interference as the stand taken by the applicants does not fall in any of the condition precedent for exercising revisional jurisdiction as stipulated under Section 115 of the CPC. 11. This being so, the present Civil Revision Application being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 12. While parting with this, the learned Judge is requested to hear and dispose of the main suit proceedings at the earliest, in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observation which has been made either in the impugned order or in the present order.