CHRISTOPHER HOLDEN Vs. MARY JOSEPHINE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is a revision petitioner herein and the plaintiffs are the respondents. The brief statement of the pleadings may be useful for appreciating the short question involved in this case, and they are:

(2.) The written statement in the suit was filed wherein the defendant disputed the contention of the plaintiff and it was alleged that the nature of the transaction alleged was one of the lease of a building, to which, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960.

(3.) The trial of the case has commenced and the affidavit of chief examination of the plaintiff has been filed. The plaintiff has to be cross-examined. At this juncture, the revision petitioner had filed I.A.No.604 of 2017 for rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaint on the face of it, does not disclose a cause of action. This was resisted by the respondents. Dismissing the said application, the trial court has held that what is involved in the suit is the character of the document styled and that it could be decided only during trial of the suit. This order is now under challenge.