ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the validity and legality of the order dated 18.07.2022 in I.A.No.457 of 2017 in O.S.No.599 of 2016 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner/defendant No.2 has filed this application in I.A.No.457 of 2017 under Order VII, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) with a prayer to reject the plaint in O.S.No.599 of 2016. The learned Judge of the trial Court, upon considering the rival contentions, pleadings and material available on record, has dismissed the said application filed by defendant No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 18.07.2022 the defendant No.2 has filed this civil revision petition alleging that the respondent/plaintiff is claiming right of pre-emption, in-fact the Original Suit is only based on such right and it is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of CPC, the orders of the trial Court are contrary to the settled principles of law and are liable to be set aside.

3. Heard learned counsel for revision petitioner/defendant No.2 and respondent No.1/plaintiff. Defendant No.1/respondent No.2 is shown as not a necessary party to the proceedings in I.A.No.457 of 2017 and that in the cause title of this civil revision petition it is mentioned that respondent/defendant No.1 is not a necessary party to the petition. The submissions made on behalf of revision petitioner/defendant No.2 and respondent No.1/plaintiff have received due consideration of this Court.

4. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner/ defendant No.2 that he has filed the suit only on the basis of right of pre-emption, which is declared as unconstitutional by the Apex Court. The plaintiff has no enforceable right, he has no cause of action to file the suit, the trial Court ought to have rejected the suit under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of CPC. The petitioner is advised that in view of settled legal principles the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. Whereas, the respondent/plaintiff has filed a detailed counter denying the petition averments.

5. I have carefully perused the averments of the counter as well as the pleadings in the plaint. As per the plaint averments the plaintiff has filed the suit on right of preemption directing the defendant No.1 to cancel the sale deed document bearing No.948 of 2016 dated 16.02.2016, executed in favour of defendant No.1 and also directing the defendant No.1 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the sale consideration being neighbour and pre-emptor. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property i.e. part of dilapidated house bearing No.23-2-137, situated at Moghalpura, Hyderabad, admeasuring 100 Sq.yards from his vendor as per the sale deed document bearing No.2169 of 2014, dated 26.06.2014. Defendant No.1 has purchased the middle portion of the said house admeasuring 178.96 Sq.yards through registered sale deed document bearing No.772 of 2014, dated 28.02.2014 from Smt.Habibunnisa Begum and others. Though defendant No.1 has purchased property admeasuring 29 feet 3 inches on the Southern side and 56 feet 3 inches on the Western side at the time of execution of registered sale deed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, he has increased the Southern side from 29 feet 3 inches to 29 feet 8 inches i.e. increased by 5 inches as such, the plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.67 of 2016 against defendant No.2. During pendency of the said suit defendant No.1 has executed a rectification deed rectifying the measurements of the boundaries and the same was registered vide document No.2177 of 2016, dated 11.04.2016. Defendant No.1 has sold the property in favour of the 2nd defendant for a consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-, in-fact the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the said property for the same consideratio