ORDER 1. This Civil Revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 against the order dated 12.3.2021, passed in RSCA No.286/2019 by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore whereby, the petitioners'/defendants' application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for dismissal of the plaint has been rejected. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the land situated at village-Chota Bangda, District-Indore admeasuring 17,897 sq. feet. The case of the plaintiff is that earlier he had purchased 20,000 sq.ft. of land out of 37,897 sq.ft. of land from the defendants in the year 1999. According to the plaintiff, this land could not be sold in piecemeal manner and at the time of execution of the sale deed, it was also assured by the defendants no.4 and 5 that remaining land shall also be sold to the plaintiff only but still an agreement was entered into with the defendants no.2 to 4 which was also challenged by the plaintiff in Civil Original Suit No.11A/2011 which was decreed on 23.01.2014 and it was declared that the said sale agreement is null and void, and plaintiff's other suit COS NO.253A/18 for execution of the sale deed in respect of the remaining piece of land ad-measuring 17897 is still pending in the Court. 3. In the present suit, the petitioners / defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C. contending that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit as no document has been placed on record demonstrating the title or right on the suit property. Thus, it is stated that only on the ground that the plaint dose not discloses the cause of action as he has no locus standi, the civil suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the civil court vide impugned order dated 12.3.2021 holding that the pleadings of the plaint has to be considered in its entity and the plaintiff has also pleaded in para 12 of the plaint as to when the cause of action has arisen. 5. 4. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the civil court vide impugned order dated 12.3.2021 holding that the pleadings of the plaint has to be considered in its entity and the plaintiff has also pleaded in para 12 of the plaint as to when the cause of action has arisen. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Judge of the Civil Court has erred in not considering the fact that not a single document has been filed on record by the plaintiff demonstrating his right to claim the relief sought in the plaint. Counsel has also submitted that even in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff, the Civil Court has only held that the owner of the land/ defendant No.5 is not entitled to sell the land over and above ad- measuring 17,897 sq.ft., as in the aforesaid case, it was held that the agreement entered into between the defendant No.5 and the defendants No.1 to 3 is null and void. Thus, it is submitted that the plaint, on its plain pleadings itself does not disclose any cause of action and the plaintiff (s) himself/themselves has/have no locus standi. Thus, it is submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of his submissions, Shri Arpit Singh, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA) dead through legal representatives and others reported as (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Colonel Shrwwan Kumar Jaipuriyar Alias Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nandan Singh and another reported as (2020) 16 SCC 594 . 7. On the other hand, Shri Rakesh Kumar Laad, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the revision and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the learned Judge of trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioners have made proper pleadings regarding the cause of action. It is also submitted that the defendants had filed the application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC after seeking ten opportunities to file the written statement, which clearly demonstrates that their only intention is to further prolong the matter. It is also submitted that the defendants had filed the application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC after seeking ten opportunities to file the written statement, which clearly demonstrates that their only intention is to further prolong the matter. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference and it is prayed that the civil revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. In support of his submissions, Shri Laad, has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another reported as (2015) 8 SCC 331 and Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh and others reported as (2012) 8 SCC 701 . 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 10. Before this court proceeds further, it would be apt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court governing the field of Or.7 rule 11 of CPC. In the case of Dahiben (supra), as relied upon by the counsel for the contesting defendants, it is held as under:- 23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 rule 11( a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11( d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. xxxxxxxxxx 23.8. Having regard to Order 7 rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. xxxxxxxxxx 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 rule 11 CPC is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I which reads as : 9SCC p. 562, para 139) xxxxxxxxxx 23.15. The provision of Order 7 rule 11 is mandatory in nature. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I which reads as : 9SCC p. 562, para 139) xxxxxxxxxx 23.15. The provision of Order 7 rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint. xxxxxxxxxx 24.3. Subsequently, in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 ] this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint. 24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court. (Emphasis supplied) 11. Similarly, in the case of Colonel Shrwwan Kumar Jaipuriyar (supra), which refers to the right of preemption, it is held as under:- 8. In the aforesaid background, it is to be held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the relief prayed, that is, a direction to the second respondent to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the first respondent and to put the first respondent in possession. There does not exist any legal right which the plaintiff or the first respondent is entitled to invoke and enforce. For a right to exist, there must be a correlative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. A right cannot exist without an enforceable duty. There does not exist any legal right which the plaintiff or the first respondent is entitled to invoke and enforce. For a right to exist, there must be a correlative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. A right cannot exist without an enforceable duty. Ownership means a bundle of rights which would normally include the right to exclude and transfer the property in a manner one wants, subject to contractual obligations as agreed or statutory restrictions imposed on the owner. In the present case, the pleadings fail to establish violation of a statutory right or breach of a contractual obligation which creates an enforceable right in the Court of law. In the absence of any such right or even a claim, the plaint would not disclose cause of action. 9. This Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612] has referred to the earlier judgment of this Court in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163 ] to explain that the cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to seek a decree and relief against the defendant. Cause of action requires infringement of the right or breach of an obligation and comprises of all material facts on which the right and claim for breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to infringe and violate the right or breach an obligation. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 ] this Court has held that if the plaint is manifestly vexatious, meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, it would be right and proper to exercise power under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code” for short). A mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action. (Emphasis supplied) 12. A mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action. (Emphasis supplied) 12. So far as the civil suit is concerned, it has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed property, seeking the following reliefs:- ^^15 ¼iUnzg½ ;g fd oknh ds fgr esa ,oa izfroknhx.k d¢ fo:) fuEu lgk;rk nh tkosa%& ¼1½ oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh mn~?kks"k.kk tkjh dh tkos fd izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ dks nkfo;k Hkwfe ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ LoRo] gd ,oa vf/kdkj ugha gksus ls os nkfo;k Hkwfe ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dPpk ,oa iDdk fuekZ.k dk;Z djus ;k nkfo;k Hkwfe ij dCtk djus ds vfèkdkjh ugha gSaA ¼2½ oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd os nkfo;k Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkh Hkkx ij ,oa nkfo;k Hkwfe ls yxh oknh ds LoRo ,oa vkf/kiR; dh Hkwfe ij Lo;a ;k fdlh Hkh vU; O;fDr ;k muds eq[R;kj ds ek/;e ls ml ij gLr{ksi ugha djs vkSj u gh fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dPpk ;k iDdk fuekZ.k dk;Z djsaA ¼3½ oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ yxk;r 6 ¼N%½ ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd os vkil esa laxuer gksdj nkfo;k Hkwfe dks Lo;a ;k fdlh Hkh vU; O;fDr ;k muds eq[R;kj ds ek/;e ls mldk fodz; ;k vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj ls varj.k ugha djsaA ¼7½ vU; lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mfpr le>sA ¼8½ lnj okn dk lEiw.kZ O;; izfroknh ls fnyok;k tkOksaA^^ 13. And, in para 12 of the same, the averments regarding the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit, are made in the following manner:- ^^12 ¼ckjg½ ;g fd lnj okn izLrqr djus dk okn dkj.k loZizFke fnukad 12-3-2019 ¼ckjg ekpZ lu~ nks gtkj mUuhl½ dks ml le; mRiUu gqvk tc vpkud izfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ dh vksj ls izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ us nkfo;k Lfkku ij dCtk djus ds mn~ns'; ls dEikm.M okWy dk fuekZ.k dk;Z vkjaHk dj fn;kA rRi'pkr~ okn dkj.k fnukad 14-3-2019 ¼pkSng ekpZ lu~ nks gtkj mUuhl½ dks ml le; mRiUu gqvk tc izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ us mlds vk'oklu ds mijkar Hkh izfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ ds LoRo ls lacaf/kr nLrkost oknh dks iznku ugha fd;k] rFkk fuekZ.k dk;Z fujUrj tkjh j[kkA rRi'pkr~ okn dkj.k fujarj mRiUu gks jgk gSA vr% lnj okn le;kof/k ds vUrZxr izLrqr gSaA^^ 14. Although, on perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is appears that the plaintiff has mentioned the date on which the cause of action has arisen to him, but nowhere in the plaint, it is stated as to exactly when the contesting defendants refused to sale the land to the plaintiff. Otherwise also, there is no document filed along with the plaint to demonstrate that the contesting defendants ever agreed to sale the land to the plaintiff. Otherwise also, there is no document filed along with the plaint to demonstrate that the contesting defendants ever agreed to sale the land to the plaintiff. On the contrary, in para 5, 6 and 7 which refers to the decree passed in earlier suit of the plaintiff against the defendants, as also the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, it is averred as under:- 05 ¼ikap½ ;g fd lnj foØ; vuqca/k ys[k izkjaHk ls gh voS/k ,oa izHkko 'kwU; Fkk] vr% oknh }kjk lnj foØ; vuqca/k ys[k dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, okn izLrqr fd;k] tks fd var esa O;ogkj okn Øekad 11,@2011 ¼X;kjg&,@nks gtkj X;kjg½ ij iathc) fd;k x;kA lnj okn esa U;k;ky; Jheku uoe~ O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k egksn; oxZ&1 bUnkSj }kjk fnukad 23-1-2014 ¼rsbZl tuojh lu~ nks gtkj pkSng½ dks oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr djrs gq, fuEukuqlkj t;i= ikfjr fd;k x;k %& ^^¼1½ izfroknh Øekad 5 ¼ikap½ ds }kjk izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ yxk;r 3 ¼rhu½ ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; vuqca/k izkjaHk ls gh voSèk gksus ls 'kwU; gSaA ¼2½ izfroknh Øekad 4 ¼pkj½ laLFkk dks 'kS{kf.kd mi;ksx gsrq vkjf{kr Hkwfe 37]897 ¼lSarhl gtkj vkB lkS lRrkucs½ oxZQhV ls vf/kd vU;Fkk mi;ksx ds fy, 17]897 ¼l=g gtkj vkB lkS lRrkucs½ oxZQhV Hkwfe foØ; djus dk gd ,oa vf/kdkj ugha gSaA ¼3½ izfroknhx.k oknh ds LoRo dh 20]000 ¼chl gtkj½ oxZQhV Òwfe ij n[kyankth ,oa gLr{ksi u djsa] bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkrh gSA ¼4½ izfroknhx.k Lo;a ,oa oknh dk okn O;; vnk djsxkA ¼5½ vf/koDrk 'kqYd vuqizek.ku ij fu;ekuqlkj ns; gksxkA** lnj fu.kZ; ,oa t;i= dh izfr layXu ih&6 ¼N%½ gSA 06¼N%½ ;g fd oknh ds ckj&ckj fuosnu ds mijkar Hkh izfroknh Øekad 4 ¼pkj½ }kjk 'kS{kf.kd iz;kstu gsrq vkjf{kr 'ks"k jgh 17]897 ¼N%½ ¼l=g gtkj vkB lkS lÙkkucs½ oxZQhV Hkwfe dk oknh ds i{k esa iathd`r foØ;&i= fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k] vr% oknh }kjk fnukad 22-2-2018 ¼ckbZl Qjojh lu~ nks gtkj vV~Bkjg½ dks ,d vU; okn izLrqr fd;k gS] tks fd orZeku esa O;ogkj okn Øekad 253,@18 ¼nks lkS frjsiu&,@vV~Bkjg½ ij iathc) gksdj U;k;ky; X;kjgosa O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k egksn; oxZ&2, bUnkSj ds le{k yafcr gSA lnj okn&i= dh Nk;kizfr layXu ih&7 ¼lkr½ gSA lnj 17]897 ¼N%½ ¼l=g gtkj vkB lkS lRrkucs½ oxZQhV Hkwfe dh prq%lhek fuEukuqlkj gS%& mÙkj & lM+d nf{k.k & oknh ds LoRo dh Hkwfe ,oa Ldwy Hkou iwoZ & lM+d if'pe & lM+d lnj prq%lhek dh Hkwfe dks lnj okn esa vkxs ^^nkfo;k Hkwfe dgk x;k gSaA 07¼lkr½ ;g fd O;ogkj okn Øekad 11,@11 ¼X;kjg&,@X;kjg½ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa t;i= fnukad 23-1-2014 ¼rsbZl tuojh lu~ nks gtkj pkSng½ }kjk izfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ d¢ i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; vuqca/k 'kwU; ?kksf"kr gks tkus ds ifj.kke Lo:i izfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ dks nkfo;k Hkwfe ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ LoRo] gd ,oa vf/kdkj ugh gSA izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ ;k muesa ls fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds ikl nkfo;k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa dksbZ LoRo] gd ,oa vf/kdkj ugha gSa] blds ckotwn xr fnukad 12-3-2019 ¼ckjg ekpZ lu~ nks gtkj mUuhl½ dks izfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ us izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ ds ek/;e ls lnj Hkwfe ij dEikm.M okWy dk fuekZ.k djokus ds mn~ns'; ls [kqnkbZ vkjaHk dj nh] rFkk ekSds ij jsrh] fxV~Vh] bZaVs] lfj;k] lhesaV vkfn j[kokuk vkjaHk dj fn;k gSA oknh us izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ ls bl laca/k eas okrkZyki dh rks mlds }kjk crk;k x;k fd izfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ esa izfroknh Øekad 5 ¼ikap½ ls 'kS{kf.kd mi;ksx gsrq vkjf{kr 17]897 ¼N%½ ¼l=g gtkj vkB lkS lRrkucs½ oxZQhV Hkwfe [kjhn yh gS] bl ij oknh us izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ ls lnj Hkwfe Ø; djus d¢ lacaèk esa nLrkostksa dh ekax dh rks muds }kjk dksbZ Hkh nLrkost crkus ls euk dj fn;kA oknh }kjk izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ dks ;gh Hkh le>kbZ'k nh xbZ fd izfroknh Øekad 5 ¼ikap½ }kjk izfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ d¢ i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; vuqca/k O;ogkj okn Øekad 11,@11 ¼X;kjg&,@X;kjg½ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa t;i= fnukad 23-1-2014 ¼rsbZl tuojh lu~ nks gtkj pkSng½ }kjk 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gS] fdUrq izfroknh Øekad 1 ¼,d½ us oknh dh dksbZ Hkh ckr lquus ls euk djrs gq, dgk fd og izfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ yxk;r 4 ¼pkj½ dh vksj ls ekSds ij fuekZ.k djsxkA 15. A perusal of the aforesaid pleadings of the plaintiff clearly reveals that on one hand it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the disputed land, and on the other hand plaintiff itself has filed a suit for execution of the sale deed against the defendants in respect of the same land. In such circumstances, testing the facts of the case on the anvil of the aforesaid decisions of the supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben (supra) and Colonel Shrwwan Kumar Jaipuriyar (supra) this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a case of clever drafting only, as the plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate its right to claim the relief as sought in the plaint, as has been aptly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Colonel Shrwwan Kumar Jaipuriyar (supra), that a mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action. 16. So far as the decision in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy (supra) is concerned, the relevant paras of the same reads as under :-- 2. Original Suits Nos. 71 and 72 of 2002 were filed by the plaintiffs (the appellants herein) for declaration of title and possession. The case of the plaintiffs in both the suits was more or less similar. According to the plaintiffs as they were living abroad they had reposed trust and faith in Defendants 1 and 2 who are their close relatives (sister and brother-in-law of Plaintiff 1) to purchase immovable property in Hyderabad in the name of Plaintiff 2. According to the plaintiffs, they had made funds available to Defendants 1 and 2 for the said purpose and had entirely relied on them. 3. The specific case of the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 71 of 2002 is to the effect that the property belonging to one Professor N.S. Iyengar was identified for purchase and an agreement was drawn up with the said person. According to the plaintiffs, they were informed by the defendants that Professor Iyengar has resiled from the agreement which required filing a suit for specific performance. According to the plaintiffs, they were informed by the defendants that Professor Iyengar has resiled from the agreement which required filing a suit for specific performance. According to the plaintiffs when they visited Hyderabad in November/December 1999, they could notice some construction activity in the plot belonging to Professor Iyengar. It is at that point of time that they had made enquiries and could come to know that though the suit for specific performance filed by the defendants was decreed, the sale deed was executed in the name of Defendant 4 who is the brother-in-law of Defendant 1. It is thereafter that the suit being Original Suit No. 71 of 2002 was filed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9. Both the suits were filed in July 2002 which is well within three years of the date of knowledge, as claimed by the plaintiffs, of the fact that the property had not been transferred in the name of Plaintiff 2 by Defendants 1 and 2. The aforesaid averments made in the plaint will have to be accepted as correct for the purposes of consideration of the application under Order 7 rule 11 filed by Defendants 1 and 2. The aforesaid averments made in the plaint will have to be accepted as correct for the purposes of consideration of the application under Order 7 rule 11 filed by Defendants 1 and 2. If that be so, the averments in the plaint would not disclose that either of the suits is barred by limitation so as to justify rejection of the plaint under Order 7 rule 11 CPC. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the High Court dated 26.6.2003 has to be reversed. We, accordingly, do so and allow this appeal and direct the learned trial court to hear and decide both the suits i.e. Original Suits Nos. 71 and 72 of 2002 on merits at an early date. (Emphasis supplied) 17. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that the facts of that case were entirely different and by no means they bear any similarity with the facts of the case in hand, thus, the same is distinguishable and is of no avail to the petitioner/plaintiff. 18. Resultantly, this Court is inclined to allow the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC and the impugned order dated 12.3.2021 is hereby set aside and the plaint filed by the plaintiff is hereby rejected as it does not discloses any cause of action. Civil Revision stands allowed.