1. The application which is the genesis for the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is one under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). In the present revision filed by the defendants 28 and 29 challenge is to the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla, dismissing I.A.No.219 of 2014 in O.S.No.139 of 2013.

2. The circumstances, leading to the filing of the instant revision are as infra:

Respondents 1 and 2 herein instituted the above mentioned suit against the petitioners and the other respondents herein for declaration of title and declaration of registered sale deeds standing in the name of the defendants as fraudulent, illegal, null and void and for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunctions in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, defendants 28 and 29, who are the petitioners herein, filed the present I.A.No.219 of 2014 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, praying the Court below to reject the plaint. Plaintiffs 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein opposed the said application by filing counter-affidavit. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla, by virtue of order dated 31.07.2014, dismissed the said application.

3. Calling in question the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siricialla, the present revision has been filed.

4. Heard Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 apart from perusing the material made available before this Court.

5. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

(1) The order impugned in the instant revision is erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 and Order IX Rule 9 of CPC.

(2) The learned Judge failed to take into consideration the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application and had the same been taken into account, the order under challenge would not have emanated.

(3) In view of the dismissal of O.S.No.195 of 1982 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein for the same relief, the present suit is hit by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of CPC.

(4) The learned Judge ought to have taken into account the aspect of filing of the present suit i.e., O.S.No.139 of 2013 based on the sale deed dated 23.12.1964 and seeking possession in the year 2003 and should have allowed the application.

6. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents:

(1) The order under challenge is in conformity with the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

(2) There is no illegality nor any material infirmity in the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla, and in the absence of the same, the present revision is not maintainable and the petitioners herein are not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3) The cause of action for instituting the present suit is different from the cause of action for filing the earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.195 of 1982 as such the petitioners herein are not entitled for any relief.

(4) Since there are no ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in the case of the petitioners herein, the plaint cannot be rejected.

(5) The application for partial rejection of plaint at the instance of certain defendants only is not maintainable.

7. In support of his submissions and contentions the learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the judgments in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society V. PonniammanEducational Trust (2012 (6) ALD 36 (SC); State of Uttar Pradesh V . Jagdish Sharan Agrawal (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 689); LingarajSamantarayk and others V. Sri Sidhabaladevjew (AIR 1984 Orissa 187); ShivashankarPrasad Sah and another V. BaikunthNath Singh and others (AIR 1969 Supreme Court 971); Manphoolan