1. Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.740 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, is the petitioner in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revision assails the order dated 24.04.2014, passed by the said Court, dismissing I.A.No.1827 of 2012 filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called ‘the Code’).

2. The facts and circumstances, in nutshell, leading to the filing of the present revision are as under;

First respondent herein instituted O.S.No.740 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, second defendant filed I.A.No.1827 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of absence of cause of action. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed a counter, resisting the said application. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, by virtue of an order, dated 24.04.2014, dismissed the said application. This revision challenges the said order.

3. Heard Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent apart from perusing the material available before this Court.

4. Contentions/submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are;

(i) The order under revision is erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code;

(ii) Since no cause of action is available to the plaintiff for prosecuting the suit further, the learned Judge ought to have allowed the application by rejecting the plaint;

(iii) In view of the filing of I.A.No.3167 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and the order passed thereon and the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.3913 of 2008, the cause does not survive for the plaintiff to further prosecute the suit;

(iv) The order in C.R.P.No.3913 of 2008 operates as res judicata as it is an order passed by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India;

(v) Plaintiff/first respondent has to file a suit for partition and cannot proceed further with the present suit as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

5. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions reported in T.ARIVANDANDAM v. T.V.SATYAPAL (1977) 4 SCC 467); PRATHIBHA v. VEDVATHI (2007 (5) ALD 565); SOUMIK SIL v. SUBHAS CHANDRA SIL (2014(4) ALD 63 (SC); RAMSARUP DASS v. PYARE DAS (AIR 1974 PATNA 153); and GADIYARAM PADMAVATHI v. ADDEPALLI HANUMANTHA RAO (2007(6) ALD 388 (DB).

6. Contentions/submissions of the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff are;

(i) The order impugned is in accordance with the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code;

(ii) There is no illegality nor there is any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, as such, the present revision is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India;

(iii) The present application is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and no plausible explanation is forthcoming for the abnormal delay in filing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code;

(iv) As per Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint alone need to be taken into consideration, but not the defence set up by the defendants;

(v) Since the plaint discloses the cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected at threshold and the plaintiff filed title deeds and pahanies, as such, he is entitled to prosecute the suit on merits;

(vi) Res judicata is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code;

(vii) judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the first respondent takes the support of the judgments reported in REEMANA KAUSHIK v. SHOBHIT KAUSHIK (2013 (5) AL