JUDGMENT : S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S. No.8113/2008 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A. No.11 filed by the respondent No.2 - defendant No. 2 whereby the said application filed by the second respondent - defendant No. 2 for rejection of plaint was partly allowed by the trial Court which rejected the claim by holding that the same does not disclose the cause of action. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the material on record. Since no relief is sought for against the defendant No. 1 - respondent No. 1 and the present appeal arising out of an order passed at the instance of respondent No. 2 - defendant No. 2, notice to respondent No. 1 is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents - defendants for specific performance, mandatory injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. After trial when the matter was posted for final arguments, the respondent No.2 - defendant No.4 filed the instant application IA No.11 seeking rejection of the plaint under order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC inter alia contending that the suit was not maintainable in law and also the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff having filed the objections to the said application, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the claim of the respondent No.2 in so far as the request for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) is concerned, but however upholding the claim of the respondent No.2 on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and consequently proceeded to reject the plaint by passing the impugned order and dismissing the suit, aggrieved by which the plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is, as to whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(a), CPC ? 6. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is, as to whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(a), CPC ? 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the plaint averments which reads as under : AMENDED PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 & 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. The Plaintiff respectfully submits as follows:- 1. The address of the Plaintiff for the purpose of service of stated in the summons, notices etc. of this Hon'ble Court is as stated in the cause title. The Plaintiff may also be served through his counsel, THARANATHA SHETTY. K, No. 25/3, 1 st Floor, Serpentine Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore 560 020. The address of the Defendants for the above said purpose is also as stated in the cause title. 2. The plaintiff submits that in the year 1996 he has purchased two sites bearing Site No. 2 and 3, each measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet from the 1 st defendant in the layout formed by him out of the land in Sy.66 of Bagalakunte Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Site No. 3 was purchased by the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-on 28-03-1996 and the Site No.2 was purchased on 05-05-1996 for sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-. The plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration in respect of both the sites totally amounting to Rs.75,000/- to the 1 st defendant on the respective dates of their purchase. 3. It is submitted that at the time of purchase of the above said two sites, the 1st defendant had represented to the plaintiff that a partition suit in 0.S.No 546/1981 filed by some of the members of his family, in respect of his properties including the above said two sites purchased by the plaintiff was decreed in his favour and the unsuccessful parties have challenged the said decree before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A No.658/1989 and that the said appeal was pending for consideration. As such, in view of the pendency of the said appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, the 1 st defendant had executed two Agreements of Sale in respect of the said two sites on 28-3-1996 and 5-5-1996 respectively, agreeing to execute the registered Bale deeds in respect of the same in favour of the plaintiff within three months from the date of disposal of the above said R.F.A No.658/1989. 4. The plaintiff further submits that the 1 st defendant has also put him in possession of the said two sites purchased by him, as he had paid the entire sale consideration to the 1 st defendant on the respective dates of their purchase, though the said fact was not mentioned in the said Agreement of Sales. The only reason why the registered sale deeds were not executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the plaintiff was the pendency of the said R.F.A No.658/1989. Thereafter, whenever the plaintiff sought information regarding the status of the said appeal from the 1 st defendant, he has been stating that the same was pending. 5. The plaintiff submits that he has been always ready and willing to get the sale deeds executed and registered in his favour from the 1 st defendant and was eagerly waiting for the same as he could not construct over said sites for want of registered sale deeds in his favour. When the plaintiff recently met the 1 st defendant in the last week of July 2008 to know the status of the pending litigation, the 1st defendant informed him that the said R.F.A NO.658/1989 is ordered in his favour and the aggrieved parties have taken the matter in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme court. But, the 1 st defendant has avoided giving the appeal number to the plaintiff, which he stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 6. It is submitted that the plaintiff has been waiting eagerly from the last about 12 ong years to get the sale deed registered in his favour. Now the plaintiff being a senior citizen aged about 72 years can no longer wait for the disposal of the litigation said to have been pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. It is submitted that the plaintiff has been waiting eagerly from the last about 12 ong years to get the sale deed registered in his favour. Now the plaintiff being a senior citizen aged about 72 years can no longer wait for the disposal of the litigation said to have been pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, left with no other option, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 13-08-2008 to the 1st defendant calling upon him to execute registered sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule properties. But, instead of complying with the lawful demands made by the plaintiff in the said legal notice, the 1 st defendant got issued an untenable reply notice dated 23-08-2008 refusing to execute sale deeds and disclosing in the utter surprise of the plaintiff that he has leased out site No.2 i.e., Suit Schedule 'A' Property in favour of the 2 nd defendant, on monthly rent for erection of its BTS tower over the said site. 7. Upon receipt of the said reply notice from the 1 st Defendant, the Plaintiff who is put up far away from the said sites, visited the suit schedule properties and found that the 2 nd Defendant had already put up its communication tower over the suit schedule 'A' property by illegally trespassing into the same and without his knowledge and consent. As such, the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 1-9-2008 to the 2 nd Defendant, marking a copy to the 1 st Defendant, calling upon it to remove the said tower put up by the 2 nd Defendant in the suit schedule 'A' Property or to pay the monthly rents to the Plaintiff. The 2 nd defendant having received the said notice, got issued an untenable reply notice dated 15-10-2008 contending that it had no knowledge of the above said agreements of sale entered into between the 1 st Defendant and the Plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties and refused to remove the tower put up by it in the suit schedule 'A' property. 8. The Plaintiff further submits that as he is aged and has been residing about three kilometers away from the suit schedule sites, he used to visit his said sites for about once in a month or so. 8. The Plaintiff further submits that as he is aged and has been residing about three kilometers away from the suit schedule sites, he used to visit his said sites for about once in a month or so. The plaintiff came to know of the illegal acts of the defendants only when he received the said reply notice from the 1 st Defendant and thereafter upon visiting the suit schedule property. The Defendants have committed the above said illegal acts of letting out of the suit schedule property and erection of the said BTS tower over the same, by colluding with each other, with an intention to knock off the valuable property and to make ill-gotten money at the cost of the Plaintiff. 9. As already stated, above, the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to get the sale deeds executed and registered from the 1 st Defendant in respect of the suit schedule sites. The plaintiff has already performed his part of the contract under the above said two Agreements of sale by paying the entire agreed sale consideration amount to the 1 st Defendant. Per contra the 1 st Defendant has failed to perform his part of the contract as per the terms of the said Agreements of sale. The 1 st Defendant had to inform the plaintiff of the disposal of the said pending Regular First Appeal and also liable to furnish all the documents of title relating to the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff before execution of the sale deeds, as per the terms and conditions of the said two agreements of sale. But, the 1 st Defendant prolonged completion of the sale transaction on one or the other pretext stating that the pending litigation has been taken to the Hon'ble Supreme court by the members of his family. As such, the 1 st defendant is liable to execute the registered sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. 10. The plaintiff submits that the 2 nd defendant who has illegally said to have entered into a Lease Deed with the 1 st defendant on 19-06-2008 for period of 15 years, in respect of the suit schedule 'A' property, is liable to remove or demolish the said BTS tower put by it over the suit schedule 'A' property at its own cost. Hence, this suit. 11. Hence, this suit. 11. The cause of action for this suit initially arose on 28-03- 1996 and 05-05-1996, when the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant entered into the above said two Agreements of Sale in respect of the suit schedule properties and on 13-8- 2008, when the Plaintiff called upon the 1 st defendant to perform his part of the contract, on 23-08-2008, when the 1 st Defendant got issued a reply notice refusing to execute the sale deeds and on all other subsequent dates when the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. 12. A separate valuation slip is annexed to this plaint. 13. There is no pendency of any legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter of this suit in any court within the knowledge of this plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a Judgment and decree in his favour for the following reliefs:- a) Directing the 1 st Defendant to execute registered sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in favour of the plaintiff and upon his failure, to get the sale deeds in respect of the same registered in favour of the plaintiff through this Hon'ble court and to deliver vacant possession of the same. b) Directing the 2 nd Defendant to remove/demolish the BTS Tower put up by it in the suit schedule 'A' property and upon its failure, to permit the Plaintiff to demolish the same at the cost of the 2 nd Defendant and; c) To Grant any other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case including cost of this suit, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.2 formed out of the land in Sy.No.66 of Bagalakunte Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on; Direction Description East Land in Sy. SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.2 formed out of the land in Sy.No.66 of Bagalakunte Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on; Direction Description East Land in Sy. No.65/1 West 25 feet road North Site No.1 South Site No.3 SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.3 formed out of the land in Sy.No.66 of Bagalakunte Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on; Direction Description East By Land in Sy.No.65/1 West By 25 feet Road North By Site No.2 (Schedule 'A' property) South By Site No.4 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS VERIFICATION We, Radha. G.Shetty, Niranjan.S.Adappa, Dayamani.S.Shetty and Dhananjay.S.Adappa, the Plaintiffs herein, do hereby declare that what is stated above in Paras 1 to 13 are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. BANGALORE DATED: 30-09-2023 PLAINTIFFS 7. It is well settled that for the purpose of considering an application for rejection of plaint, it is only the plaint averments and documents produced along with the plaint that can be looked into and the averments made in the written statement or defence of the respondent No. 2 or even the contentions urged in the application for rejection of plaint are neither relevant material or germane for the purpose of considering an application for rejection of plaint. In this context, a perusal of the plaint averments will indicate that it is the specific contention of the appellant - plaintiff that while he is entitled to specific performance as against defendant No.1, the plaintiff claims to be entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as against the defendant No.2 to remove/demolish the BTS tower put up by on the suit scheduled property and upon failure to do so to permit the plaintiff to demolish the same at the cost of the second defendant. The said prayer sought for by the plaintiff is based on averments made in paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. 8. A plain reading of the averments made in the plaint qua defendant No.2 will clearly indicate that the same cannot be said to not disclose any cause of action as erroneously concluded by the trial Court. The said prayer sought for by the plaintiff is based on averments made in paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. 8. A plain reading of the averments made in the plaint qua defendant No.2 will clearly indicate that the same cannot be said to not disclose any cause of action as erroneously concluded by the trial Court. In addition thereto, the specific contention of the second defendant that the suit was barred by law and warrants rejection as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11B has been specifically rejected by the trial Court by holding as under: "8. In this case, admittedly, the defendant No.2 has not executed any Agreement of Sale. The contract is entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff has made defendant No.2 as a party to the suit on the ground that the defendant No.1 has leased the suit schedule "A" property in favour of defendant No.2 on monthly rent, for erection of BTS Tower over the said site. The plaintiff has pleaded in para No.11 of the plaint that cause of action to this suit arose on 28.03.1996 and 05.05.1996, when the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into two Agreements of Sale. The plaintiff has issued legal notice, calling upon defendant No.1 to perform his part of the contract. The careful perusal of averments of plaint discloses that, the plaintiff has not pleaded anything against defendant No.2, except pleading that defendant No.1 has leased the suit schedule "A" property in favour of defendant No.2, for erection of BTS Tower over the said site. The cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is only in respect of defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 in his written statement at para No.5 made it clear that, it is bound by a decree in the event plaintiff succeeding in the suit. Under these circumstances, if the plaintiff succeeds, the defendant No.2 is bound by the decree. The plaintiff in prayer column has sought for prayer directing defendant No.2 to remove/demolish the BTS Tower. 9. The learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that, in case of granting of specific performance, the defendant No.2 is liable to be directed to remove/demolish the BTS Tower. There is nothing against defendant No.2 in this case. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. The contract is entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 9. The learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that, in case of granting of specific performance, the defendant No.2 is liable to be directed to remove/demolish the BTS Tower. There is nothing against defendant No.2 in this case. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. The contract is entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Under these circumstances, merely because defendant No.1 has leased the suit schedule "A" property in favour of defendant No.2 is not ground for the plaintiff to file this suit against defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 is not a party to the contract. In a suit for specific performance, the parties to the contract are alone parties to the suit. Since there is no relief and nothing is pleaded against defendant No.2, there is no cause of action against defendant No.2. The plaintiff in para No.11 has pleaded that cause of action arose to the suit between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 alone. There is no pleadings against defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 has proved that there is no cause of action against it in a suit filed by the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 further failed to prove how the suit is barred by limitation or any law. The defendant No.2 has established that suit of the plaintiff has no cause of action. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative." 9. As can be seen from the impugned order, after having come to the conclusion that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that the suit is not maintainable, the trial Court clearly fell in error in failing to notice the plaint averments in so far as prayer No.2 is concerned which is directed only against defendant No.2 and decree for mandatory injunction is sought for by the plaintiff as against defendant No.2. It is therefore clear that the trial Court has come to the erroneous conclusion that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action for a decree for mandatory injunction as against defendant No.2 and has erroneously rejected the plaint and consequently dismissed the suit by passing the impugned order which clearly is contrary to law and facts warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. 10. 10. It is also pertinent to note that the trial Court has rejected the plaint only as against respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 and has continued the suit as against defendant No.1 - respondent No.1 without appreciating that the relief of mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiff is consequential to the relief of specific performance sought for by the plaintiff which is yet another circumstance that would vitiate the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order and consequent judgment and decree is hereby set aside. IA No.11 filed by the respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 is disposed of leaving open all contentions to be urged by both sides on all aspects of the matter including the contentions urged in IA No.11 by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. 12. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 13. The appellant and respondents are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.12.2025. 14. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible on merits. 15. All rival contentions urged by both sides are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.