JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Since both these revisions arise out of same suit for the common issue, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The C.R.P.No.2120 of 2021 is filed against the order dtd. 7/12/2021 in I.A.No.675 of 2021 in O.S.No.74 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) C.P.C. read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. was dismissed.

4. The C.R.P.No.970 of 2022 is filed against the order dtd. 7/12/2021 in I.A.No.884 of 2021 in O.S.No.74 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Sec. 151 C.P.C., was dismissed.

5. The case of the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 in C.R.P.No.2120 of 2021 is that they are absolute owners and possessors of suit agricultural land admeasuring Ac:10-00 gts in Sy.No.390/AA and 390/EE situated at Kotepally Village and Mandal, Vikarabad having purchased the same through registered sale deed dtd. 14/2/2013 and after purchase, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs for declaration and cancellation of the documents is barred by limitation as the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had executed the registered sale deed dtd. 23/1/2008 for consideration of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 in favour of respondent No.3/defendant No.1 and the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and hence, they filed the petition to reject the plaint.

6. The case of the petitioner/defendant No.1 in C.R.P.No.970 of 2021 is that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose the cause of action and barred by limitation as the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have sold the property through registered sale deed on 23/1/2008 and after a lapse of 12 years, they cannot file suit for declaration of the same as null and void on the ground of fraud.

7. The Court below has dismissed both the I.As in different orders on the same day i.e. 7/12/2021. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the suit.

9. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed both the petitions for rejection of plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of proper cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation. After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed both the applications on the ground that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and a triable issue and the same has to be decided only after adjudication. With regard to non-disclosing of cause of action, the Court below observed that the plaint averments clearly disclose the cause of action as there were series of events explained in the plaint regarding their demand to return the sale deed and issuance of legal notice after knowing the execution of sale deed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The Court below further held that the plaintiffs mentioned that the sale deed executed by them was obtained through fraud as no consideration was paid and this issue has to be decided only after completion of trial.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that the averments made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action and it ought to have allowed the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., and the Court below has erroneously dismissed those applications. Learned counsel further submits that the suit is barred by limitation as it is only a sham litigation and the documents relied on by the plaintiffs do not disclose any cause of action.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Honourable Apex Court has repeatedly held that if the cause of action is created only with an intention to unnecessaril