P PARAMESWARI Vs. SELVI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has come forward with this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 10.03.2014 passed in I.A.No.112 of 2014 in O.S.No.57 of 2013 by the the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2013, against the defendant/revision petitioner herein for declaration and also for permanent injunction in respect of the schedule mentioned property. The property was originally owned by Lingamoorthy and Saravanaswamy, from whom, the revision petitioner purchased the property under sale deed dated 21.01.1999, which is entirely different from the suit property. One Narsimhan purchased the suit property on 21.02.2012 from Lingamoorthy and his children, from whom, the plaintiff purchased the same under Sale deed dated 13.08.2012. Now, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant/revision petitioner herein for bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further submitted that since the property of the defendant/revision petitioner herein is entirely different from the suit property, the plaintiff/respondent herein has no cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, the defendant/respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.112 of 2014 in O.S.No.57 of 2013 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint as the plaint has not disclosed cause of action. Furthermore, since the property was purchased from the common owners, it is a vexatious suit. To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society, Rep. by its Chairman vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, Rep. by its Chariperson/Managing Trustee, 2012 8 SCC 706 and submitted that the property of the defendant is entirely different from the suit property. But, the trial Court, without considering the same, has dismissed the application. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the same.