IMPORTANT POINT
The court discussed the scope of rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C and referred to legal precedents to determine the cause of action and the limited scope of rejection under the rule.

ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the orders dated 27.12.2022 passed in I.A.No. 751 of 2022 in O.S.No.241 of 2014 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ongole, the present revision is filed.

2. The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant before the court below. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No. 241 of 2014 for partition against the defendants therein, wherein the petitioner herein has filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 and Section 151 of C.P.C to reject the plaint of O.S.No.241 of 2014. The Court below after hearing on both sides has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision filed.

3. Heard Mr. Kishore Babu Manne, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the court below failed to understand the purport of rejecting the plaint, though it is admitted by the 1st respondent/ plaintiff is that the properties described in Ex.B1 to B3 were alienated by him under Sale Deeds, but the 1st respondent/ plaintiff concealed that fact in the plaint and claiming equal shares in the remaining properties and erroneously dismissed the said application. Further the court below has not given any proper reasons while dismissing the application and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the court below has rightly dismissed the application by given cogent reasons and come to a conclusion that the contention raised by the petitioner in rejecting the plaint can be raised at the time of arguments, since the suit is coming up for arguments. Further the plaintiff discloses cause of action for filing of the suit in the plaint at the time of institution of the suit. Since no ingredients mentioned under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of C.P.C to reject the plaint are not attracting for rejection of the plaint. Therefore this Court needs no interference in the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the application.

6. Perused the record.

7. The main contention of the petitioner/ 1st defendant is that the properties covered under Ex.B1 to B3 are not included in the plaint schedule and plaint itself is deceptive one as partition had already taken place and the 1st respondent admitted that he sold out the property covered under Ex.B1 to B3. Since there is no cause of action in the plaint and the properties shown in the plaint are ancestral properties. Therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected.

8. Whereas the 1st respondent i.e plaintiff in the suit would contend that the petitioner/ 1st defendant has not filed under order VII, Rule 11 of CPC at earlier point of time, even though admissions are made by the 1st respondent/ plaintiff, the same can be argued at the time of final hearing and drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Order 11 of CPC - Rejection of the plaint. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of this Court in 'Kasani Narasimhulu vs. Sathagowni Srinivas Goud and Others', CRP No.3310 of 2013, dated 28.10.2013 High Court of A.P wherein the learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held as follows:

'15. In Mayar (H.K) LTD (supra 2), the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraphs 11 and 12 held as follows:

"11. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts whic