(Prayer: PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 17.2.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.318 of 2016 on the file of the Fourth Additional District Court, Coimbatore.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 17.2.2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.318 of 2016 on the file of the Fourth Additional District Court, Coimbatore (for short, the Court below) whereby the application filed by the petitioner/second defendant for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) came to be dismissed.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

4. Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit. It was filed on the ground that the wife of the first plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant on 04.7.1984, that thereupon, the plaintiffs paid the entire dues to the Housing Board, that after completion of payment, when attempts were made by the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed in their favour, the first defendant was refusing to execute the sale deed, that thereafter, notices were exchanged and an attempt was also made to disturb the possession of the suit property, that in the meantime, the first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 on 19.12.2012 and that under those circumstances, the suit was filed seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the settled possession of the plaintiffs and consequently to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from, in any manner, interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for a declaration of the sale deed dated 19.12.2012 executed by the first defendant in favour defendants 2 and 3 as null and void.

5. During the pendency of the said suit, an application came to be filed by the second defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs were trespassers into the suit property, that they did not have any right whatsoever in the suit property, that the Housing Board executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant on 20.7.2012, that thereafter, the first defendant executed a sale deed dated 19.12.2012 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and that the suit was barred by limitation since the sale agreement had become inexecutable. Under such circumstances, the second defendant sought for rejection of the plaint.

6. The Court below, while considering the said application, came to the conclusion that even if the claim of the plaintiffs for right and title to the suit property is rejected, ultimately, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, that even if they are termed as trespassers, the plaintiffs could be evicted only in accordance with law and that therefore, to that extent, the plaint could not be rejected. Accordingly, the Court below dismissed the said application by the impugned order. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

7. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioner is that the first defendant was not even the owner of the suit property when the alleged sale agreement was entered into on 04.7.1984, that he became the owner of the subject property only on 20.7.2012 when the Housing Board executed the sale deed, that the very basis, on which, the right was claimed by the plaintiffs by relying upon the sale agreement dated 04.7.1984 was unsustainable, that as a result, the consequential relief sought for by the plaintiffs was unsustainable and that therefore, the suit was liable to be rejected.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs have been handed over possession of the subject property pursuant to the sale agreement with the first defendant, that their possession was protected in part performance of the agreement, that therefore, they could not be evicted from the suit property unless and otherwise by due process of law, that at least to the extent of claiming the relief of injunction, the suit should not be thrown out and that the impugned order passed by the Court below does not warrant the interference of this Court.

9. In the case in hand, admittedly, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property purportedly as per the agreement of sale dated 04.7.1984. Even if ultimately the plaintiffs are found to be not entitled for any right or title over the suit property, the plaintiffs will have to be evicted only in accordance with law. This is the case even if the plaintiffs are held to be trespassers.

10. Hence, even for the sake of arguments, if the plaintiffs are held to be not entitled for any relief pertaining to the right over the suit property, they will be certainly entitled for protection by way of injunction till they are evicted from the suit property in accordance with law. Further, the relief of permanent injunction will sustain in the plaint.

11. When it comes to dealing with an application seeking for rejection of the plaint, there is no question of rejecting a part of the plaint. Either the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or the suit has to be continued till its logical conclusion.

12. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. [reported in 2018 (1) LW 447].

13. A reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. [reported in 2019 (4) CTC 721].

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that a suit can never be rejected in part.

15. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order passed by the Court below does not warrant the interference of this Court. Ultimately, the defendants will have to initiate proceedings for eviction and delivery of possession and work out their remedies in accordance with law.

16. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 17.2.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S. No.318 of 2016 on the file of the Court below is sustained. There shall be a direction to the Court below to dispose of O.S.No.318 of 2016 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that any observation that has been made in this order will have no bearing when the Court below decides the suit on merits. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.