IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.60 of 2008 ----------- Smt. Daulat Devi Smt. Lata Singh, wife of Dr. Damodar Prasad Singh, Resident of Plot no. 175, New Diliain, Opposite Church, Dehri-on- Sone, District Rohtas, Bihar. …. Defendant-Petitioner v ersus M/s Satwant Singh Sodhi Construction Pvt. Ltd., WZ-48, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi through its authorized representative and Director, Shri Surendra Pal Singh, s/o late Malik Singh, resident of A/-4/181, Sector 17, Rohini, New Delhi, 110085. …Plaintiff-Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Muari Mishra, Advocate. For Opp. Party : None. ------- 03/ 29.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 18.08.2007, by which learned Subordinate Judge-III, Sasaram rejected her application under Order VII Rule 11, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Suit No. 514 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party on the basis of agreement for sale of the suit property dated 22.10.2003 executed by the sole defendant-petitioner in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party and also for injunction as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. In the said suit, the sole defendant-petitioner appeared and filed an application on 14.05.2007 (Annexure 4) under the provision of Order VII Rule 11, read with section 151 of the 2 Code for rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff with exemplary cost. A rejoinder to the said application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff- opposite party on 21.04.2007. However, the said application was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 18.09.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned court below on the ground that the cause of action has not been shown and pleaded as is apparent from the plaint and agreement for sale in question. However, from a plain reading of the plaint of the suit (Annexure 1), it is quite apparent that the cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit has been clearly shown in various paragraphs of the plaint including paragraph no.11, in which the agreement for sale dated 22.10.2003 had been specifically mentioned and within a period of three years the said suit had been filed. 6. So far the agreement for sale is concerned, the genuineness and effect thereof have to be considered on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties at the stage of final hearing of the suit and the genuineness or otherwise of the deed or terms thereof or wherther they were acted upon by any of the parties cannot be decided one way or the other at this stage without considering the evidence of the parties, which are yet to be led. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed 3 with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points, which she has raised before this Court, before the learned court below with respect to the cause of action at the time of final hearing of the suit and the learned court below shall decide the said issue along with other issues in accordance with law. . MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)