A plaintiff must state a cause of action and the question of limitation is to be determined at trial, not through an application to reject the plaint.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This civil revision petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the orders dated 25.06.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge at Kamareddy in I.A.No.33 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2023 where under the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri A.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Amrutha Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of revision that respondent Nos.3 to 16 are not necessary parties in the revision petition.

3. The revision petitioner herein is defendant No.1 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are plaintiffs, respondent Nos.3 to 16 are defendant Nos.2 to 15 in O.S.No.13 of 2023. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.13 of 2023 before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case:

4.1. Plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Kamareddy, seeking declaration that they are absolute owners, title holders and possessors of the suit schedule property i.e. land to an extent of Ac.1.18 guntas in Sy.No.1058 situated at Lingampet Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District and recovery of possession of the said property from defendant Nos.1 to 7; cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.1095 of 2022 dated 17.05.2022; sought perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 7 from alienating, mortgaging or change of the suit schedule property and for rectification of the entries in the record of rights in Form No.1-B of ROR and pahanies/adangals etc. by removing the illegal entry and by inserting the name of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.33 of 2024 under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action mentioned in the plaint and the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Thus, the defendant No.1 filed the present revision petition.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1:

5.1 Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiffs are not having any right or interest over the suit schedule property and they never in possession of the same. The plaintiffs have not mentioned when their names were removed from the revenue records and when the names of the defendants were entered. According to the averments of the plaint, they were not in possession of the suit schedule property since long time. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

5.2 He further submitted that the plaintiffs have not in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time even assuming that taking into consideration of the averments of the plaint, the cause of action arose for filing the suit for recovery of possession when they actually dispossessed. Plaintiffs have not mentioned the actual cause of action in the plaint and they mentioned that the cause of action arose on 17.05.2022 only for the purpose of filing the suit. The trial Court without properly considering the contentions raised by defendant No.1, dismissed the application.

6. Submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiffs:

6.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs have mentioned the cause of action in the plaint and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is wit