A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the Appeal Suit against an order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, in I.A.No.772 of 2022 in O.S.No.1064 of 2022, filed by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in the plaintiff’s Suit.

2. The plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 for declaration of ownership, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction and for a declaration that the registered General Power of Attorney bearing document No.45/2006 dated 01.06.2006, registered Sale Deed bearing document No.4938/2008 dated 25.11.2008 and registered Sale Deed bearing document No.25283/2015 dated 09.12.2015 are sham, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, along with rectification of revenue records and rectification of boundaries.

3. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.772 of 2022 in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) on the grounds that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by the law of limitation.

4. By the impugned order dated 14.07.2025, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.772 of 2022 i.e., the application for rejection of the plaint filed in the plaintiff’s Suit.

5. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is the sole contesting respondent before this Court.

6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court accepted the contention of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 that the earlier Suit filed by the respondent No.1 in 2016 (O.S.No.231 of 2016) gave a cause of action to the plaintiff to file a Suit for declaration while the other reliefs sought for in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 were barred by limitation.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that paragraph 27 of the plaint clearly states that the cause of action for filing the Suit arose in May, 2022, when the defendant No.1 trespassed into the Suit schedule property and illegally erected temporary concrete plates in the south-west corner therein. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.3, along with other respondents, sold the Suit schedule land to the brother of the appellant through a registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.1980. Subsequently, the brother of the appellant executed a registered Gift Deed dated 24.07.1987, transferring the Suit schedule land in favour of the appellant.

8. The Revenue Authorities, after conducting a de novo enquiry, issued an ORC (Occupancy Rights Certificate) in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 08.04.1996 and mutated his name as pattedar. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s name was recorded as the pattedar and possessor in the revenue records from 1995-1996 onwards.

9. Counsel submits that the respondent No.3 alienated the land bearing Sy.No.272 admeasuring Ac.01.00 gts., in Thurka Yamjal Village, by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 01.06.2006 followed by a registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.2008 in favour of the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 filed a Suit O.S.No.603 of 2015, which was later dismissed as not pressed on 02.03.2016 after the respondent No.2 having admitted that the appellant is the owner and possessor of the Suit schedule land as reflected in paragraph 8 of I.A.No.510 of 2015 filed therein. While the said Suit was pending, the resp