ORDER:

Defendants in the suit filed this Civil Revision Petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of Order dated 18.12.2019 of learned Junior Civil Judge, Mylavaram in I.A.No.697 of 2017 in O.S.No.88 of 2016.

2. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. Despite notices being served, none entered appearance.

3. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submitted arguments.

4. O.S.No.88 of 2016 is a suit filed by the plaintiffs wherein they prayed for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property which is Ac.0.25 Cents of land in R.S.No.321/2C of G-Konduru Village of Krishna District. There are two defendants in the suit. Those defendants filed I.A.No.697 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) and Section 151 CPC seeking for rejection of the plaint. By the impugned order, learned trial Court dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by it, defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Since controversy revolves around maintainability or rejection of the plaint, it is necessary to see what was contained in the plaint. It is stated in the plaint that the plaint schedule property was owned by Sri Kukkala Narayana. He executed a possessory agreement for sale dated 24.08.1992 in favour of Sri Pajjuru Kotaiah and received the sale consideration and delivered possession of the property to the purchaser. The purchaser Sri Pajjuru Kotaiah having entered into possession on the date of agreement for sale continued to hold possession of the property and he enjoyed it and he died intestate on 12.07.2010. On his death, his entire estate including the property that he had got under the agreement for sale devolved upon his wife and three children. His wife and three children are the plaintiffs who filed the suit. The vendor Sri Kukkala Narayana died. Defendant No.1 is his wife. Defendant No.2 is his son. Plaint further states that after the death of Sri Pajjuru Kotaiah, the plaintiffs continued to hold possession of the plaint schedule property and Revenue authorities recognised their possession and mutated the entries in the Revenue records and issued 1B forms, Adangals and Pattadar and title deed passbooks in favour of plaintiff No.1. While so, the defendants on 02.06.2016, without any right over the property, illegally came to the plaint schedule property and forcibly attempted to remove the plaintiffs from possession of the property and with the help of neighbours, plaintiffs were able to thwart it. Defendants left the place by threatening that they would forcibly occupy the property. To avoid bloodshed and for protecting their possession, they have filed this suit seeking for permanent injunction.

5. It is the above referred plaint that was sought to be rejected by the defendants and for that purpose they filed I.A.No.697 of 2017. In that petition they stated that the plaint alleged agreement for sale dated 24.08.1992 is a forged, created and fabricated document. Without seeking for Specific Performance of such agreement for sale, the mere suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable as it is barred by Section 41(h) of Specific Performance Act, 1963. Since the relief of Specific Performance is not asked in the present suit, the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. It is for these reasons, defendants sought for rejection of the plaint.

6. As against that, a counter affidavit was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. They stated that they filed a suit for Specific Performance and the same is O.S.No.144 of 2017 and the same is pending before the same Court. It is stated that the defendants in the present suit have been contesting the said suit also. In these circumstances, the present petition to reject the plaint is not maintainable. The other allegations made in the petition are baseless. For these reasons, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

7. Af