JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - The petitioner has preferred the present civil revision under Section 115 of CPC arising out of order dated 05-08-2021 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena in RCS No.95 of 2020 whereby the application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Necessary facts for disposal of present revision in short are that initially plaintiffs (herein respondents No.1 and 2) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, pleading therein that defendant no.1 (herein petitioner) is the real brother-in-law of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 (herein respondent No.2) is the wife of defendant No.1 and they are close relatives and had jointly purchased 10,000 sq.ft of land in between 18-10-1995 to 18-03- 2008. Out of 10,000 sq. ft. of land, defendant No.1 started business of stone works on 5000 sq.ft of the disputed land and obtained loan amount from the bank in advance by way of preparation of forged documents. In the plaint averments, the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants have not paid any lease rent to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereafter sent a legal notice to defendants for vacating the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirements. It is further pleaded that the defendants without permission of plaintiffs are creating a nuisance by digging the disputed land for the purpose of construction of water tank. Hence, plaintiffs claimed Rs.50,000/- per annum as mesne profit from the date of filing of suit as well as for recovery of possession. 3. Defendants filed reply along with application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court and also filed another application under the same provision before the trial Court. Plaintiffs also filed reply to the same by refuting the averments made by defendants and pleaded that second application filed by defendants is barred by principle of res judicata as the earlier application has been rejected by the trial Court on 22-02- 2021. The trial Court rejected the application filed by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC vide impugned order. Hence, this petition. 4. The trial Court rejected the application filed by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC vide impugned order. Hence, this petition. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the learned trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order dated 05-08-2021 whereby the application filed by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has wrongly been rejected. There is no cause of action shown in the plaint by plaintiffs. The suit for eviction filed by one of co- sharers against another co-sharers is not maintainable as the same has been filed under the MP Accommodation Control Act in the year 2020 i.e. prior to expiry of period of lease which was in existence in favour of the petitioner for a period near about thirty years. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation as the same is superseding the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The suit is barred by law on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party though Central Bank is a necessary party. Defendants had obtained advance loan amount from the Bank in which the plaintiffs are guarantors. Both the parties are joint owners of undivided suit property and without alleging breach of condition of lease deed, plaintiffs did not have any cause of action for instituting the proceedings for eviction against petitioner. In view thereof, the suit filed by plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action as per provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC but learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application filed by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by trial Court deserves to be set aside and the application filed by defendants deserves to be allowed. It is further contended that under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in the conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is further contended that under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in the conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. When a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the Court would not permit the plaintiffs to unnecessarily protract the proceedings and in such a situation, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. In this regard, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Bajoria & Others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan & Others [2021 SCC Online SC 764]. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 opposed the contentions of the petitioner- defendant and submitted that after receiving the legal notice, a false reply has been filed by defendants mentioning wrong fact regarding the rented out of disputed property by Hydra machine which was involved in a Forest Case. Defendants have not either paid any rent or mesne profit. Defendants without giving permission from the plaintiffs had started digging the disputed land for the purpose of construction of water tank and abused plaintiffs as well as created nuisance. There is also no partition of disputed property till date, therefore, a suit for eviction has been filed for vacating the suit property which is well within time. The subsequent application filed by defendants is barred by principle of res judicata and earlier application filed by defendants has rightly been rejected by the Court below vide order dated 22-02-2021. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as under:- 11. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as under:- 11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9. 8. Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.'' On perusal of the aforesaid provisions as well as the documents available on record, it is apparent that while filing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court, the defendants remained failed to show the grounds/provisions enshrined under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and such grounds/objections/issues could be raised by the defendants by filing of written statement. 9. Accordingly, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC. There is no perversity or illegality in passing the impugned order. The revision being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.