A plaint that lacks a valid cause of action and is clearly an abuse of process may be dismissed summarily under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to prevent unnecessary litigation.

ORDER :

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, in IA.No.1142 of 2021 in OS.No.470 of 2019 dated 07.02.2022 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).

2. Petitioner is the sole defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the suit vide OS.No.470 of 2019.

3. It is stated in the application (IA.No.1142 of 2021) that the respondent-plaintiff stated in Para 6 of the Plaint that the property stands in the name of petitioner-defendant. Respondent-plaintiff claimed that it is a nominal purchase in the name of the petitioner- defendant by her husband i.e., Bulle Ilaiah who has purchased the same during his lifetime and the extent of the property is Acs.02-00 guntas covered in Survey No.409/A/1/2. The claim of the respondent- plaintiff is that he is the adopted son of Bulle Ilaiah, he was adopted in the year 1999 when he was aged about 3 years and he was admitted in Nalanda Public School, Chilakanagar, Uppal, Hyderabad in the year 2004. The plaint lacks cause of action and barred by law.

4. Respondent-plaintiff filed counter and contended that he is the adopted son of Bulle Ilaiah and the petitioner-defendant, during the lifetime of Bulle Ilaiah he has purchased the suit schedule property in the name of the petitioner-defendant as she is the wife. The purchase is only nominal and her name was mutated in the Revenue Records and he has a cause of action to file a suit, prayed to dismiss the application.

5. The learned trial Court after going through the contents of the affidavit and counter, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC holding that the contentions raised by the parties is a subject matter of trial and even the right so claimed by the respondent-plaintiff is based on adoption is also a subject matter of trial which is impugned in the present CRP.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the petitioner-defendant has purchased the subject property under registered Document No.5772 of 2012 and it cannot be said that the property is a joint family property. The learned trial Court has not paid any attention with regard to registered document which is in the name of the petitioner. Mere imparting education to the respondent-plaintiff does not mean that he is the adopted son. In support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another , [2025 (2) ALD 246 (SC)], (2) Bajranglal Agarwal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and Others , [2024 (6) ALD 116 (TS) (DB)]

7. Respondent has received the notice but failed to appear.

8. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, perused the material.

9. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.1142 of 2021 in OS.No.470 of 2019 dated 07.02.2022 suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it requires interference of this Court?

10. A three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh , (1991) 4 SCC 1 = 1991 SCC (L&S) 1082, held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words “right to sue” means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the