ORDER : (BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.) 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of prayer to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The impugned order was passed on 13.02.2024 in Civil Original Suit No.39/2019. 3. The challenge is on the ground that plaintiff No.1 had no cause of action for the suit as he was not title holder in respect of the suit property nor was in possession of the same. 4. According to the plaint, plaintiff No.2-Kamal Kumar Parakh @ Kamal Singh Parakh had two ancestral Havelies in Churu. The Havelies were purchased by the ancestors of the planintiff No.2. One fourth of the share in the Haveli was of grandfather of plaintiff No.2 namely late Hulas Chand. Hulas Chand Ji had three sons namely Champa Lal Ji, Jaskaran Ji and Bachchhraj Ji. Bachchhraj Ji was father of plaintiff No.2. Jaskaran Ji had already renounced his one-twelfth share in the Haveli in favour of plaintiff No.2. As such, the plaintiff No.2 got two-third share in the Haveli property. 5. The parents of plaintiff No.2 died long back. The plaintiff No.2 and proforma respondent No.6 Manju Devi wife of Vijay Singh jointly executed a deed on 17.08.2013 in favour of plaintiff No.1-Shyamsunder @ Ghanshyam and on receipt of the entire consideration money handed over possession to plaintiff No.1 and side by side a power of attorney was executed in favour of Vishnu Sharma to execute sale deed in pursuance of agreement dated 17.08.2013. Proforma respondent No.3 Padamshri, the wife of plaintiff No.2 and proforma respondent No.4 Vikas Kumar executed a showy sale deed on 30.08.2013 in favour of the defendant-petitioner herein though they had no title or possession to execute the sale-deed. Therefore, suit was brought to declare the sale-deed dated 30.08.2013 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Injunction was also sought for against the defendants to not to deal with the property in pursuance of their sale-deed dated 30.08.2013. 6. The suit was filed on 21.09.2016. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff No.1- Shyamsunder had no cause of action for the suit as he had got no title over the suit property unless the title was transferred through registered sale-deed as required by law. 8. 6. The suit was filed on 21.09.2016. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff No.1- Shyamsunder had no cause of action for the suit as he had got no title over the suit property unless the title was transferred through registered sale-deed as required by law. 8. The case and claim of the plaintiff No.2 is that he had already handed over possession of the suit property to plaintiff No.1 as such according to their own version, they had no claim over the suit property after they agreed to sell the same to plaintiff No.1 on 17.08.2013. 9. The law is well settled that whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not is to be gathered on meaningful reading of the plaint itself as a whole, and not on the basis of piecemeal reading of the plaint. At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the Court cannot reject the plaint against one of the plaintiffs, especially when another plaintiff claims to have title over the suit property as the suit property being ancestral property of the family of plaintiff No.2. 10. Whether the relief would be granted ultimately or not after trial of the suit would not be a consideration at this stage unless the plaint discloses a case of illusionary cause of action by a clever drafting. 11. In the case on hand, the plaint sufficiently discloses valid cause of action which should be tried, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the instant civil revision stands dismissed.