ORDER :

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26.04.2019 in I.A.No.657 of 2017 in O.S.No.54 of 2014 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy district.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed suit for partition in O.S.No.54 of 2014 against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 34-defendants. While so, the petitioners-defendant Nos.11 and 12 filed application in I.A.No.657 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C.”) to reject the plaint on the grounds that the suit is barred by limitation, barred under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C., for want of proper Court fee and cause of action and on the ground of locus standi of the plaintiff.

4. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed counter-affidavit resisting the said application.

5. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application vide order under revision. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

6. Besides filing the written arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the application filed for rejection of plaint. The suit was filed in O.S.No.12 of 1984 for partition by the father of respondent No.2, wherein respondent No.1 to 3 were brought on record. The present pleadings do not disclose how respondent Nos.1 to 3 related to the property and how the present properties are related to the said suit. Respondent No.1 has not properly valued the suit schedule property and for want of proper Court fee and for all these grounds, the plaint is liable to be rejected. He has placed reliance on the following decisions:

i) I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 634

ii) The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society, rep.by its Chairman v. M/s.Ponniamman Educational Trust rep.by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, AIR 2012 SC 3912.

iii) T.Aravindam v. T.V.Satyapal, AIR 1977 SC 2421

iv) Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Lrs., AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1430

v) Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1140 vi) State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 vii) Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives, (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the trial Court has considered the contentions raised by the petitioners in proper perspective and it has rightly dismissed the application filed by them for rejection of plaint.

8. Thus, on hearing the submissions of the counsel for both parties and on perusing the material on record, the point for consideration is; whether the impugned order is sustainable in law?

9. Before adverting to the facts of the present case available from the plaint, it is proper to consider some of the precedents relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

In I.T.C Limited’s case (1 supra), the Apex Court considered the question as to whether the power to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised even after the framing of issues, and when the matter is posted for evidence, held that even after framing of issues, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be considered.

In Church of Christ Charitable Trust’s case (3 supra), the Apex Court at para No.6 held as under:

10. Since the appellant herein, as the first defendant before the trial Judge, filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not show any cause of action against him, at the foremost, it is useful to refer the relevant provision:

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

“11.Rejection of pl