V.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. Brief facts for disposal of this revision are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,52,600/- against the applicant/defendant in the Court of Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, alleging that on 1-9-1995 agreement to sell the property belonging to Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar who are minors, was executed by applicant/defendant and an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ten thousand) was received by him towards earnest money against the total amount of consideration of Rs. 3,70,000/-.
2. Applicant/defendant filed an application on 18-9-2001 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint on the ground that Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar have executed the alleged agreement to sale, but the respondent/plaintiff did not join both of them as party in the suit. No cause of action arose against the applicant/defendant. Learned Lower Court considered the application and dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 20-9-2001.
3. Admittedly, on 1-9-1995 respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement with Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar who are minors through guardian – Chaturmal (applicant/defendant) who executed agreement to sale and in lieu thereof received Rs. 1,10,000./- towards earnest money. The instant suit has been filed by respondent to recover the said amount paid towards earnest money to Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar.
4. Agreement to sale took place in between respondent/plaintiff on one side and Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar on the other side. Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar received earnest money. Therefore, without impleading Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar no suit is maintainable. Set apart, in violation of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, without claiming specific performance of contract suit for recovery of earnest money appears to be barred.
5. In the instant suit, plaint does not disclose the cause of action against the defendant Chaturmal in absence of Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar. Set apart, from the plaint averment, the instant suit appears to be barred as envisaged under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Dismissal of the application by the Lower Court is illegal, therefore, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the plaint filed by respondent/plaintiff is rejected.
Parties to bear their own costs.