MADAPPA Vs. CHINNASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

(2.) These revision petitioners are the defendants before the Trial Court and invoked Order 7, Rule 11(b) and (d) read with Sec. 151 of CPC, in O.S.No.456/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., at Chamarajanagara, wherein, it is contended that the plaintiff has sought for the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the defendants and the suit is very false suit and no cause of action and the suit schedule property has been measured by the Taluk Surveyor and issued the survey sketch. Earlier the survey number of suit schedule property was not in existence. The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendants. The plaintiff has not produced any sketch, Huddbasth documents. Hence, prayed the Court to reject the plaint.

(3.) The Trial Court having considered the grounds in the application and also the statement of objections filed by the plaintiff, wherein, they contend that the application is filed only for dragging of the proceedings. The Trial Court in paragraph No.7 discussed the contentions of the defendants that they are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has not produced the relevant documents. There is no cause of action. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that the defendants have already filed the written statement. But they have not pleaded these averments in their written statement and also come to the conclusion that the contention of the defendants is that they are the absolute owners, the same has to be proved by a full fledged trial. The very contention is that there is no cause of action cannot be accepted and rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.