JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J. 1. The applicants herein-original defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC” for short] challenging the order dated 21.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sanand below Exh.18 in Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 2012 whereby the application of the present applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision Application are as under: 2.1 That the original plaintiffs-respondents herein have filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 2012 in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Sanand stating that the plaintiffs and the defendants-applicants herein had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding [“MOU” for short] dated 30.6.2012 duly executed in front of the witnesses in respect of the suit lands for the sale of the same at the rate of Rs.31 Lakhs per vigha. In accordance with such execution of the MOU, the plaintiffs-respondents herein have paid Rs.32 Lakhs in cash towards the said transaction to the defendants-applicants herein. It is further alleged in the suit that as per the MOU, the plaintiffs and the defendants had to take all the necessary permissions and clear all the rights of the parties in the suit lands and thereafter execute the sale deed after getting all the necessary and relevant permissions from the revenue authorities. It is further alleged that thereafter, the plaintiffs-respondents herein came to know that there was a Town Planning Scheme in respect of the suit lands. It is further alleged that on 25.7.2012 when the plaintiffs went to meet the defendants for completing the formalities and for the execution of the sale deed in terms of the MOU, the defendants-applicants herein refused to act in terms of the MOU. It is further alleged that since the defendants-applicants herein have refused to act as per the MOU and have refused to proceed further, the present suit has been filed praying for the declaration that the plaintiffs-respondents herein have a legal right over the suit lands and the defendants-applicants herein or their agents have no right to interfere in the said suit lands. Further, by application dated 30.7.2012, the plaintiffs- respondents herein have prayed for leave of the Court for execution of the sale deed under the MOU. Further, by application dated 30.7.2012, the plaintiffs- respondents herein have prayed for leave of the Court for execution of the sale deed under the MOU. In the said suit, the defendants-applicants herein have also filed their written statement denying the execution of any MOU. 2.2 That in the aforesaid suit, the defendants have filed their reply denying the averments in the plaint and have also denied that they have received any sale consideration in cash and have also denied the execution of so-called MOU. It is stated in the reply that with regard to land of Revenue Survey No. 106, Khata No. 145 of village Sanand, certain talks were going on with one Shri Vikasbhai and that the defendants have never met the plaintiffs. It is also stated in the reply that with regard to said land since the title was to be verified, signatures of the defendants were taken by Shri Nareshbhai, agent of Shri Vikasbhai on blank papers and a notice dated 25.6.2012 was given in a daily newspaper. It is also submitted that such blank paper is misused and bogus agreement is created. It is also stated that the said agreement is unregistered and therefore, no suit can be instituted on the basis of the same. It is further stated that the said agreement is a forged and fabricated document as well as void agreement without consideration and the suit being declaratory suit, is not maintainable under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. 2.3 That, thereafter, the applicants herein-defendants filed application below Exh.18 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit. That the said application below Exh.18 came to be rejected by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sanand vide impugned order dated 21.12.2014. Aggrieved, the original defendants-applicants herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Application. 3. Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants-original defendants submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC once the ingredients of said provision are satisfied and it is the duty of the Court to reject the plaint and dismiss the suit. He has submitted that the plaint is liable to rejected since it does not disclose the cause of action. He has submitted that the plaint is liable to rejected since it does not disclose the cause of action. He has submitted that when the plaint does not disclose the cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC without going into any other provisions of the law. He further submits that since in the plaint itself, there is no prayer for specific performance, the bar of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act clearly applies and therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. He further submits that the Court has to find out as to whether in the facts of the case, the reliefs claimed in the plaint can be granted to the plaintiff or not, and if the Court finds that the same cannot be granted under the law, then such a suit is not allowed to continue. 3.1 He has submitted that the MOU being a concocted and unregistered document, it cannot be a base to institute the suit and the suit is barred by Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. He has submitted that MOU is without consideration and being a void agreement since unregistered, the suit is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Registration Act as well as Specific Relief Act. He has submitted that the suit is filed praying for permanent injunction and no declaration qua title has been sought nor specific performance of the MOU dated 30.6.2012 has been prayed for and the suit for stand alone prayer of injunction is not maintainable. He has submitted that the plaintiffs though prayed for declaration, however, the prayer is nothing but for injunction and the plaintiffs have not sought any relief for specific performance. He submits that when remedy for specific performance is available, then the plaintiffs cannot file a suit for injunction simpliciter for availing the relief. He submits that when a suit for injunction is not maintainable and in absence of prayer for specific performance, which now has become time barred, in any event, no purpose would be served by allowing the suit to continue. He submits that the present suit in absence of prayer for specific performance is vexatious and aimed at harassing the defendants. He submits that if the ultimate relief cannot be granted, then the suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He submits that the present suit in absence of prayer for specific performance is vexatious and aimed at harassing the defendants. He submits that if the ultimate relief cannot be granted, then the suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 3.2 In support of his submissions, Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, relied upon the decisions in case of: (i) Abdul Wahid vs. Manish Hansraj Chandaria and Another (ii) Ananthula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. (2008) 4 SCC 594 (iii) T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, AIR 1977 SC 2421 (iv) Laljee Joshi vs. Bhaiyya Ram Yada, AIR 2007 Chattisgarh 142 (v) Bakshi Ghulam Mohd. vs. G.M. Sadiq and Others, AIR 1968 J&K 98 (vi) P.R. Sukeshwala and Another vs. Dr. Devadatta V.S. Kerkar and Another, AIR 1995 Bom. 227 (vii) Shri Ravindra Kishore Sinha vs. Smt. Manjula Bhushan, (2010) 166 DLT 121 (viii) Dilawar Singh vs. Amardeep Singh in C.R. No. 5269/2015 decided on 18.2.2016 [Punjab & Haryana High Court] In view of above, Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, prays to allow this Civil Revision Application by quashing the impugned order dated 21.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sanand below application Exh.18 in Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 2012. 4. Though the notice of this Court is duly served upon the respondent No. 1 by direct service and the respondent No. 2 is served through publication in news paper, none of the respondents have chosen to appear through advocate or in person. 5. Heard Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and perused the documents on record. 6. The Order VII 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. (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. 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.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court through its various decisions from time to time has laid down the law with regard to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as under: (A) In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 137 : “10. In Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2003 (1) SCC 557 , it was held with reference to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit - before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 11. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 11. In I.T.C. Ltd. vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Others, 1998 (2) SCC 70 , it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order VII 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 VII 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 VII 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 X of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, 1977 (4) SCC 467 ) 13. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill, 1982 (3) SCC 487 , only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected. 14. In Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property, 1998 (7) SCC 184 , it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable. 15. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. 15. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair- splitting technicalities.” (B) In P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and Another vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 331 : “5. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the 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 VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has 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 VII 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. 6. 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. 6. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said pleadings ex facie discloses that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any other provision of law. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order VII rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant.” (C) In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order VII 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 VII Rule 11, CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of 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. 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 VII Rule 11 of 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. 11. A bare reading of the afore-quoted provisions (relevant provisions for the purpose of this matter) contained in 1954 Act and 1995 Act, makes it manifestly clear that the provisions, which are relevant for this case are almost parimateria with each other. (D) In Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through LRs. and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 562: “33. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: xxx xxx xxx 34. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 35. The underlying object of Order VII 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. 36. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. 36. In Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words: “12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.” 37. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 38. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 40. Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII 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. 41. In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. 42. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. 43. 42. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. 43. The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 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. vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Another, which reads as: “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.” 44. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Co. the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. 45. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 46. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain (supra). 47. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain (supra). 47. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (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. 48. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit. 49. In Swamy Atmanand vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam this Court held: “24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 50. In T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words: “5. …The learned Munsiff 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 O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. 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...” 53. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing...” 53. 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.” 8. This Court has carefully perused the averments in the plaint read with the documents relied upon. Para-10 of the plaint discloses the cause of action, which is as under: “The cause of action for filing of the present suit has arisen when the plaintiffs went to the defendants on 25.7.2012 and have personally met the defendant No. 1 for taking action in terms of the MOU executed between the parties and under the said MOU to proceed further with necessary formalities for the sale of the suit lands. Upon such request, the defendant No. 1 had become angry and had flatly refused to take any action under the MOU with respect to the sale of the suit lands and also refused the MOU and further threatened the plaintiffs that they may take whatever recourse they may like in this regard. Accordingly, the cause of action has arisen in the present case and the same is continuing since then.” (Free translation from vernacular) 9. The learned Trial Court has held that the averments as stated in para-10 of the plaint is giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiffs and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was without any cause of action. In the present case, this Court is also of the opinion that the cause of action has been stated in the plaint and no interference is called for in the findings of the learned Trial Court. 10. Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that in the suit, the plaintiffs have not prayed for any specific performance of the agreement and seek only the relief of mere declaration. He submits that the same is in contravention of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act which provides that no Court shall make any declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief omits to do so. He submits that the same is in contravention of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act which provides that no Court shall make any declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief omits to do so. He has submitted that in the plaint, since there is no prayer for specific performance, the bar of Section 34 would be clearly applicable and the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The said contention of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted. In the present case, the plaintiffs have already filed an application under Order-II Rule-2 of CPC along with the suit plaint reserving their right to file appropriate suit in case the defendants-applicants herein do not act in terms of the MOU. 11. The learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the MOU was concocted and unregistered document and the suit is barred by Section 49 of the Registration Act. He has further argued that the MOU is without consideration and being unregistered, the suit was not maintainable as per the provision of the Registration Act. In the present case, the said contentions also deserves to be rejected. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have averred that there was an agreement between the parties for sale of the suit land and pursuant thereto, Rs.32 Lakhs in cash [at the rate of Rs.31 Lakhs per bigha] was paid to the defendants-applicants herein and, accordingly, deed of MOU dated 30.6.2012 was executed between the parties in the presence of the witnesses. The reply of the defendants-applicants herein cannot be taken into consideration at this stage and therefore also, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel deserves to be rejected. The judgments as relied upon by Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel in support of the contentions will not be of any help to his case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 12. After examination of the plaint and the documents, this Court is of the opinion that applying the above mentioned principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have clearly made out a prima facie case for the suit to go to trial with an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in respect of their respective stands. The MOU as executed between the parties would also require an opportunity for the parties to lead evidence. The MOU as executed between the parties would also require an opportunity for the parties to lead evidence. Therefore, in the present case, even if the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants herein are to be considered at this stage, at the worst, it can be said that the ambiguity in the document would necessarily require full trial with the opportunities for the parties to lead evidence. At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that no emphatic finding can be rendered on the transaction between the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the material on record including the pleadings in the plaint and the documents in question cannot lead to a conclusion that the plaint deserves to be rejected at the threshold and that the trial is not at all warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering the aforesaid observations, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that no case is made out for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(A) of CPC for failure to disclose the cause of action. Further, whether the suit is barred by any provision of law will also have to be answered by giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in the present case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fault can be found with the findings of the Court below. The present Civil Revision Application is without any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. After pronouncement of above judgment, Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, prays that the ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 27.3.2015 may be extended for further period of six weeks. Considering the fact that the ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 27.3.2015 staying further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 2012 pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sanand is continuing till date, the same is extended for four weeks from today.