- (1.) Heard Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Shri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri P.K. Kesari, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.5.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No. 152 of 2011, whereby an application filed by the revisionists-defendants under Order VII, Rule 11(a), C.P.C. has been rejected. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for injunction stating therein that on 23.10.2010 a sale-deed of free hold plot No. TT/2/B, Civil Station, Allahabad comprising an area of 3250 sq. meters situate at Edmonston Road, Allahabad, (for short 'the property in dispute') was executed in its favour by one Radhekrishna Jaiswal S/o Sitaram Jaiswal, and since then the plaintiff-Rs. respondent is owner in possession thereof, and that the said property was earlier a part of vacant land of Bunglow Nos. 14 and 16, Edmonston Road, Allahabad. It is further alleged that the revisionists-defendants have no concern with the property in dispute, yet they threatened to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-opposite party, when on 30.1.2011 plaintiff-respondent proceeded to carry out repairs of a dilapidated boundary wall.
(2.) An application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the C.P.C. was filed by the defendants-revisionists wherein it was admitted that they have no concern over the property in dispute. It was further stated that the house of the revisionists exists over plot No. TT/2/D and partly on TT/2/C, Civil Station, Allahabad and that he has no concern with the free hold plot No. TT/2/B, Civil Station, Allahabad. The Trial Court rejected the application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the C.P.C. on the ground that the plaint discloses a cause of action to file a suit.
(3.) It is submitted by Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionists that once the defendants in their application had stated that they have no concern over the property in dispute and, on the contrary, the plaintiff for ulterior and mala fide reasons has sought injunction against them, then the plaint, as framed and filed, did not disclose any cause of action qua the revisionists and the Court below ought to have rejected the plaint.;