ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 23.07.2018 of the learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 358 of 2017 in O.S. No. 116 of 2017 filed by the defendants 1 to 4 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code’ for short) requesting to reject the plaint.

2. Heard Sri D. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. There is no representation for the contesting respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submit that respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to this revision as they have not filed any counter before the trial Court. Respondent No. 5 is stated to be not a necessary party.

3. The case of the defendants in support of the request made in the application for rejection of the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants 5 and 6 to take appropriate action by demolishing the 3rd and 4th floors after conducting enquiry as per the directions dated 04.02.2016, of this High Court in W.P. No. 3280 of 2016 against the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from ever interfering with the plaintiffs joint rights in the stair case, terrace of the building and common amenities. The defendants 1 and 2 are the GPA Holders. The 3rd defendant and 4th defendant constructed plaint schedule property, i.e. G+4 as builders, by name, “Sri Sai Sowdha” group house and the plaintiffs purchased a flat each in the 1st and 2nd floor in that group house. After purchase of the flats, the plaintiffs, in collusion with defendants 1, 2 and 4, with a view to secure wrongful gain, harassed the 3rd defendant by filing cases before District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada and also suit in O.S. Nos. 410 of 2016 and 1153 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Later, the suit came to be dismissed on the basis of the memo filed by the plaintiffs. A writ petition in W.P. No. 3280 of 2016 was filed before the High Court. The plaintiffs filed the instant suit with false and untenable grounds. The plaintiffs raised common reliefs in all the suits. Further, they have not taken any permission to file a fresh suit while not pressing the earlier suits filed by them.

3.1 According to the defendants, the plaint is liable for rejection on the following grounds:

(i) The pleadings in the plaint as well as cause of action are contrary to the orders made in W.P. No. 3280 of 2016.

(ii) The plaintiffs suppressed real/nature of the orders in W.P. No. 3280 of 2016.

(iii) The plaintiffs suppressed the contents of the order in W.P. No. 3280 of 2016.

(iv) The suit is premature.

(v) The plaintiffs suppressed the cases filed by them against the defendants 1, 2 and 4 and the 3rd defendant.

(vi) The reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs are hit by the principle of res-judicata.

(vii) The plaintiffs did not pay proper court fee.

4. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiffs, in their counter, in brief, is that the petition is not maintainable either on facts or under law. Though a group house was constructed by the defendants, and all the inmates are entitled for the amenities therein, the defendants are causing obstructions in using the amenities in spite of the orders of the Court. As a counter blast to the contempt case filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants filed the instant petition to reject the plaint. The plaintiffs filed the present suit only after not pressing the earlier suits filed by them by reserving their right to file fresh suit. As the defendants failed to comply with the order of the High Court in W.P. No. 3280 of 2016, the present suit has been filed and the application to reject the plaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. At the time of hearing of the interlocutory application before the trial Court, no oral and documentary evidence