THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3889 and 3932 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of a common order, dated 05.07.2010, passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Ongole, in I.A.Nos.260 and 261 of 2010 in O.S.No.85 of 2009. The petitioner herein entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent, on 11.11.2006, for sale of an item of immovable property i.e. Apsara Lodge, Ongole Town, for a consideration of Rs.40 lakhs. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid, as advance, on the date of agreement. Three months time was stipulated for completion of the transaction. The respondent paid a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on 15.12.2006. Thereafter, one Smt. Eswaraka Sugunamma filed O.S.No.3 of 2007, against the petitioner, in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole, for partition and other connected reliefs, in respect of the said item of property. On a demand made by the petitioner, the respondent paid a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, on 10.10.2008 and an endorsement was made to the effect that the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement would be executed within one week from the date of disposal, or settlement of O.S.No.3 of 2007. The respondent filed O.S.No.85 of 2009 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Ongole, for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 11.11.2006. He pleaded that contrary to the terms of agreement and endorsement thereon, the petitioner started negotiating with third parties for sale of the lodge. The petitioner filed written statement, opposing the suit. She has also filed I.A.No.261 of 2010 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint, as bereft of cause of action, and I.A.No.260 of 2010 under Order XIV Rule 10, with a prayer to decide the issue regarding rejection of plaint, as a preliminary issue. The applications were opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the applications through common orders, dated 05.07.2010. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 11.11.2006. The petitioner does not dispute her obligation under the agreement. However, she wanted the trial Court to reject the plaint, on the ground that there is no cause of action for the respondent to file the suit. It is true that absence of cause of action is one of the grounds under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., that enables the Court to reject a plaint. In the instant case, the petitioner relies upon an endorsement, dated 10.10.2008, which is to the effect that the sale deed would be executed within one week from the date of disposal of O.S.No.3 of 2007. Strictly speaking, the respondent cannot be said to be having any cause of action, as long as O.S.No.3 of 2007 is pending. However, it is the specific case of the respondent that taking advantage of the said endorsement, the petitioner is trying to sell the property in favour of others. The truth, or otherwise, of it apart, that plea can certainly constitute a cause of action, or basis to file the suit. Further, if the petitioner is sincere towards her commitment under the agreement, it is just un-understandable as to what detriment she has suffered on account of the filing of the suit by the respondent. The trial Court has examined the matter from the correct perspective and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. Hence, the C.R.Ps. are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:02.08.2011 GJ