A plaint may be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC for lack of cause of action if it does not disclose a clear right to sue, especially when clever drafting attempts to create an illusion of legitimacy.

Order :

RENUKA YARA, J.

The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the order passed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.211 of 2023 in O.S.No.652 of 2023, dated 19.03.2024, wherein, a petition filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Heard M/s. Vankina, Allu & Partners, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record.

3. Initially, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.652 of 2023 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.0-12 Gts., in Sy.No.55, situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded by North: Defendant’s land, South: Neighbours house, East: 30 feet wide road, neighbours building and plaintiff’s plot and West: Neighbours houses, without following due process of law. After filing of the said suit, the I.A under revision has been filed to reject the plaint for lack of cause of action. The case of the respondent is that there is no written agreement between the parties to the suit, no deposit or advance payment of any amount to the respondent, fixed amount of Rs.30,000/- is paid by the respondent to the petitioners every month from the year 2013 till August, 2023 without escalation and there is an alleged oral lease which is on month to month basis.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the plaint is carefully drafted to create an illusion of cause of action which needs to be nipped in the bud at the earliest. Further, according to the petitioners, the respondent committed fraud on the Court by suppressing the fact that the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 was filed on 15.09.2023 on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Due to non-working days of Court on Saturday, Sunday and Vinayakachavithi, the matter was heard on 20.09.2023. When the respondent failed to secure ad-interim injunction from the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar on the first date of hearing on 20.09.2023, said suit i.e. O.S.No.614 of 2023 has been withdrawn on 21.09.2023. Immediately thereafter, the present suit i.e. O.S.No.652 of 2023 was filed with the same contents, same cause of action, same prayer including the typed content on suit valuation but before a District Court. The petitioners pleaded that the conduct of the respondent is highly objectionable as there is an abuse of process of the Court. It is further stated that the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 was withdrawn after first date of hearing i.e. 20.09.2023, on 21.09.2023 even before summons were served on the petitioners. The petitioners have withdrawn the license to respondent to park the vehicles in suit schedule property and in order to circumvent said withdrawal, the petitioner No.2 approached the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special (Mobile) PCR Act, Ranga Reddy District vide O.S.No.616 of 2023 and the matter was first heard on 10.10.2023. On that day, summons in the present suit were received by the petitioners and on enquiry, the objectionable acts of the respondent were discovered. Since the respondent approached the Court with unclean hands by blatant abuse of process of Court, the petitioners prayed that the plaint be rejected.

5. The respondent herein opposed the I.A deny