Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 424
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J.
D. Ramaa - Appellant
Vs.
Mala Brijkumar Bhaktani and Others - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1158, 1170 & 1380 Of 2020
Decided On : 23-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.V. PRATAP KUMAR
For the Respondent: N SRIDHAR REDDY
A plaint must disclose a real cause of action; clever drafting that creates an illusion of a cause of action can lead to dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Revision petitions filed by defendants challenging the dismissal of their applications for rejection of plaints - Court found that plaints disclosed a cause of action despite defendants' claims of lack of merit and limitation - Defendants' arguments regarding knowledge of GPA execution and limitation were deemed clever drafting to create an illusory cause of action. (Paras 3, 6, 19, 20)
(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that a plaint must be read meaningfully to determine if it discloses a real cause of action, and clever drafting that creates an illusion of a cause of action should be dismissed at the outset. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaints in suits for recovery of possession and cancellation of documents executed in 1971, claiming the suits were barred by limitation. The trial court dismissed the applications, leading to these revisions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaints disclosed a valid cause of action and that the defendants' claims of ignorance regarding the GPA execution were not credible.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaints disclosed a valid cause of action and whether the suits were barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaints were sufficient to proceed and that the defendants' arguments were an attempt to create an illusory cause of action.
Result: Revision petitions allowed, setting aside the trial court's orders.
ORDER :
(Decided On : 23-04-2025 )
Since the lis and parties involved in these revision petitions are same, these matters were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order.
2. CRP.Nos.1158, 1170 and 1380 of 2020 are filed by defendant Nos.35, 40 and 39 respectively, challenging the orders dated 24.02.2020 passed in IA.Nos.984, 915 and 914 of 2019 respectively, in OS.No.592 of 2018 by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.
3. The brief facts of these cases are that the revision petitioners who are defendants in the above suits filed the above IAs., under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘ CPC ’) praying for rejection of plaint. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said IAs., vide impugned orders dated 24.02.2020 observing that the plaint discloses some cause of action and the same is sufficient even though the chance of success for the plaintiff in the suit, are remote. Hence, these revisions.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, and learned counsel appearing for respondents, respectively, in all the revision petitions.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are replete with glaring illegalities and contraventions of established legal principles. He contended that the plaints and supporting documents filed by the plaintiffs woefully fail to disclose valid cause of actions for the suits, particularly with regard to the reliefs sought for recovery of possession and cancellation of registered documents executed since the year 1971. He lamented that egregious lacunas were further compounded by the respondents' categorical admission in their pleadings in OS.No.27 of 2010, wherein, they unequivocally acknowledged executing a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in the year 1970, authorizing the attorneys to sell the lands, which were coupled with the subsequent sale to third parties, renders the suit irrevocably barred by limitation. He asserted that the respondents have engaged in a blatant exercise of creating an illusory and manufactured cause of actions, replete with frivolous and mischievous assertions, which are utterly devoid of any factual foundation.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners incessantly contended that the failure of respondents to specify the date of land acquisition proceedings for the Outer Ring Road (ORR), which occurred in the year 2005-06 and that the same is a glaring omission which would highlight the infirmities in their case. He averred that the respondents cannot be permitted to circumvent the law of limitation through clever drafting, artfully omitting crucial details that would unequivocally render the suit barred, and that the attempt of respondents to create a cause of action through false statements made on oath is utterly unsustainable in law, and that the same warrants stringent reprobation. In support of their contentions, reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali ,
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the allegations made by the petitioners are entirely false, baseless, and devoid of any merit. They averred that the plaints would clearly discloses a valid cause of actions for the suits, as the respondents have specifically pleaded that they came to know about the fraudulent GPA and sale deeds through a news article published in the month of May 2018. They lamented that the suits were well within the limitation period as the respondents have plea
