S MANOHARAN Vs. T MAYAKKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed the revision petition challenging the order dated 28.08.2007 made in I.A.No.266 of 2007 in O.S.No.128 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, No.2, Madurai.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the revision petitioner are as follows: THE revision petitioner filed the suit praying for decree: 1.By declaring one of the defendants is a real owner/landlord of the suit "A" Schedule building, entitled to receive the rent from the plaintiff and in consequence to restrain the defendants from in any manner evicting the plaintiff without determining the ownership of the property. 2.Direct the defendants to pay the costs of this action.

(3.) ON the contrary the learned counsel for the first respondent/2nd defendant relied on the following decisions to state that the order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is a decree and an appeal is the proper remedy. (1) Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad reported in (1973) 2 Supreme Court Cases 524 which held as follows.