SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 105

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Sri R.Lakshmi Narsimha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1035 Of 2025
Decided On : 09-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R LAXMINARASIMHA RAO
For the Respondent: M RAM MOHAN REDDY

The court ruled that a plaint lacking a clear cause of action should be rejected to prevent sham litigation; ignorance of registered documents does not constitute valid grounds for filing a suit after the limitation period.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Revision filed challenging order rejecting application to dismiss plaint on grounds of lack of cause of action and limitation - Plaintiff's suit for partition and declaration of documents as null and void barred by limitation - Ignorance of registered documents cannot be claimed - Clever drafting of plaint evident - Court emphasizes on rejection to prevent sham litigation. (Paras 3-4, 8-9, 24-26)

(B) Limitation - Mixed question of law and fact - Trial Court held limitation issue can be adjudicated during trial, an erroneous approach as it can be ruled out at initial stage if plaint does not disclose cause of action. (Paras 6-7, 32-33)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought partition of properties claiming ignorance of certain registered documents, alleging they were created maliciously. The petitioner argued the suit was barred by limitation, and the trial court dismissed the application claiming mixed questions could be resolved at trial.

Findings of Court:
The revisional court held that the plea of limitation should have been upheld, confirming the documents were constructively notice to the plaintiff.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in failing to recognize the plaint's dismissal basis on the grounds of limitation and absence of clear cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: It was ruled that the plaint must indicate a straightforward right to sue, and vague claims of ignorance cannot excuse the lateness of the suit. The judicial interpretation underscores that clever drafting should not mask the absence of a legitimate cause of action.

Result: Revision allowed; plaint rejected.

Table of Content
1. revision petition filed under article 227. (Para 2 , 3)
2. plaintiff files suit for partition and declaration of sale deeds as null. (Para 4 , 5)
3. defendant argues for rejection of plaint on various grounds. (Para 6 , 7)
4. limitations and cause of action principles in cpc. (Para 18 , 19 , 22)
5. rejection of plaint if barred by limitation and not disclosing cause of action. (Para 23 , 30 , 31)
6. legal standards for rejection of plaint under cpc. (Para 25 , 26)
7. registration of documents serves as constructive notice. (Para 28 , 29)
8. trial court's dismissal based on mixed question of law and fact. (Para 32)
9. court sets aside trial court order as jurisdictional error. (Para 33 , 34)

ORDER :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

Heard Sri R.Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K.V.Phanisri, learned counsel representing Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent. Respondents 2 to 17 are being defendants, formal parties.

2. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.10.2024 in I.A.No.877 of 2023 in O.S.No.56 of 2019 by the Chairman, L.R.A.T – cum – II Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar.

3. Vide the said order, learned trial Court dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/Defendant No.12 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint on the grounds that there is no cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation.

4. 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.56 of 2019 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 17/defendants for partition and separate possession and to declare registered sale deeds viz: Doc. No. 6065 of 2005 dated 21.04.2005 in favour of Defendant No. 14,Doc. No. 6066 of 2005 dated 21.04.2005 in favour of Defendant No. 15, Doc. No. 6067 of 2005 dated 21.04.2005 in favour of Defendant No. 16, Doc. No. 6068 of 2005 dated 21-04-2005 in favour of Defendant No. 17, partition deed Doc. No. 8567 of 2005 SRO, Karimnagar, Doc.No. 12265 of 2007 dated 24.10.2007, gift settlement deed Doc.No.12706 of 2007 dated 20.11.2007, Sale deed Doc.No.1355 of 2008,Gift Settlement deed Doc.No.1507 of 2008, dated 10.03.2008, gift settlement deed Doc. 4188 of 2010 dated 13.05.2010, Sale Deed Doc. 12265 of 2007, Doc. No. 12727 of 2007 dated 19.11.2007, Sale Deed Doc. No. 1355 of 2008 SRO Karimnagar, Gift Settlement Deed Doc. No. 4188 of 2010 SRO Karimnagar, Gift Settlement Deed Doc. No. 1507 of 2008, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 7725 of 2008 dated 20-11-2008, SRO Karimnagar, Regd. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 4369 of 2010 dated 20.05.2010, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 6178 of 2011 dated 01.07.2011, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 11209 of 2011 dated 15.12.2011, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 9236 of 2013 dated 17.08.2013, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 64 of 2015 dated 03.01.2015, SRO Karimnagar, Regd. Release/Redemption Deed Doc. No. 9649 of 2015 Dt: 29-09-2015, Regd. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 10610 of 2015 SRO Karimnagar, as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs and in respect of Memorandum of Understanding documents the Plaintiff is not liable or any way concern with regard to the discharge of liability except the right of ownership as null and void.

5. The petitioner/defendant No.2 had filed I.A.No.877 of 2023 in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, to reject the plaint on the following grounds:-

i. The plaintiff, having fully aware of the address of the petitioner’s firm, intentionally shown wrong address.

ii. Mr. Billa Sahith Reddy, shown in the plaint, is not the partner in the firm of the petitioner herein.

iii. The petitioner’s firm had purchased Ac.32 guntas of land long back out of Ac.5.31 guntas in Sy.No.836/A of Karimnagar ( subject

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top