The main legal point established is that the rejection of a plaint should be based on valid legal grounds and the cause of action should be carefully considered.

JUDGMENT :

Challenging the order, dated 05.11.2022 in I.A.No.1003 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2013, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, filed the present appeal.

2. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. As evident from the grounds of appeal as well as the enclosures thereof, it is pertinent to refer here the circumstances in which the respondent/plaintiff is compelled to file the present appeal.

4. Originally, the respondent/plaintiff viz., Smt. S. Ghousia filed O.S.No.145 of 2004, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Proddatur, against the defendants viz., (1) Uppulur Fakruddin, (2) Mahammad Yusuf, (3) M. Chandraleela, (4) B. Obulamma and (5) Syed Jalekha Bee, seeking partition of the suit schedule property into two portions and allot one half share to plaintiff by taking good and bad qualities and for grant of mesne profits during the pendency of the suit. While so, during the pendency of the suit, the said plaintiff filed I.A.No.807 of 2009 in O.S.No.145 of 2004, seeking permission to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Proddatur, allowed I.A.No.807 of 2009 permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit subject to condition of payment of suit costs to the first defendant. Further the order discloses that a memo filed by the plaintiff withdrawing the suit is recorded and the suit shall be dismissed with costs to the first defendant as withdrawn. Subsequently, Smt.S. Ghousia filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2013, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur against the defendants viz., (1) Uppaluri Mohammad Yousaf, (2) M. Chandraleela, (3) B. Obulamma and (4) Syed Jaleka Bee, with a prayer to partition the suit schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff by taking good and bad qualities and put the plaintiff into a separate possession and to direct the defendants to pay the mesne profits and to declare that the registered sale deed bearing No.209/2004, dated 08.01.2004, registered sale deed bearing No.927/2004, dated 30.04.2004 and registered sale deed bearing No.848/2004, dated 12.04.2004 as null and void. During the pendency of O.S.No.26 of 2013, the first defendant filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. Though it appears that the first defendant did not quote the proper provision of law, but undoubtedly, the above said application was filed to reject the plaint which is regulated by Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. So, mere quoting of wrong provision of law in the Interlocutory Application has no significance.

5. The case of the first defendant in I.A.No.1003 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2013 is as follows :

The plaintiff filed suit against him and others for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Earlier, she filed O.S.No.145 of 2004 seeking partition and separate possession and to overcome the chief examination of R.W.1 and her witness, she filed I.A.No.807 of 2009 seeking permission to withdraw the suit and to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The petition was allowed on condition to pay the suit costs to the petitioner. O.S.No.145 of 2004 was dismissed as withdrawn. Without complying the order in the above said Interlocutory Application to pay the suit costs, the present suit is filed. The plaintiff has no right to institute the present suit. No cause of action arose against the petitioner and others to file the suit and to proceed in the trial.

6. As against the above Interlocutory Application, the plaintiff filed a counter denying the allegations and contending that he filed the present suit against the petitioner and others for partition and separate possession. He pleaded cause of ac