ORDER:

Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri MannamVenkata Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants being aggrieved from the order dated 10.12.2025 of rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) in I.A.No.474 of 2025 in O.S.No.230 of 2021 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

3. The plaintiff (respondent herein) initially filed O.S.No.1492 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants (the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & the predecessor in the interest of the petitioner Nos.3 to 5 herein) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit schedule property.In the suit, the petitioners filed written statement raising various pleas. The suit was dismissed on 04.07.2016. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.155 of 2016which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 18.02.2016 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

4. The plaintiff thereafter filed another O.S.No.230 of 2021 in the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit is pending.

5. In O.S.No.230 of 2021, the defendants/petitioners filed I.A.No.474 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Inter-alia, it was stated that in the previous suit O.S.No.1492 of 2005, the defendants had filed written statement and denied the title of the plaintiff. The defendants case in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was that since the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff in the written statement filed in O.S.No.1492 of 2005, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the suit O.S.No.230 of 2021 for declaration was barred by limitation and was liable to be rejected. The O.S.No.230 of 2021 was required to be filed within a period of limitation of 3 years from the date cause of action first accrued i.e., when the written statement was filed in O.S.No.1492 of 2005 in 2005 itself. Reliance was placed in Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

6. The plaintiff-respondent filed objection/counter,inter-alia taking the stand that the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation was premature, legally untenable and misconceived. The suit was not barred by limitation. The plaintiff-respondent further pleaded that after the decree in O.S.No.1492 of 2005, the plaintiff had filed A.S.No.155 of 2016 and during its pendency the defendants/petitioners with malafide intent, began spreading false propaganda in and around the vicinity of the suit schedule property, falsely claiming ownership thereof and on 15.08.2021 taking the advantage of their men, they made an unsuccessful attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property. Their right to sue for declaration was said to have accrued on 15.08.2021.The defendants misconstituted the cause of action from the written statement filed in earlier suit, O.S.No.1492 of 2005.

7. Learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether any ground exists under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as prayed by the petitioner/defendant or not?”

8. The learned Trial Court held that the plaint averments specifically stated that the cause of action arose on 15.08.2021. The plaintiff pleaded that plaintiff was an owner and in peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property and on 15.08.2021 the defendants attempted to interfere and set up false ownership and tried to trespass. Learned Trial Court held that the Court was bound to confine strictly to the plaint averments and the written statement or defense documents, earlier written statement, judgment in O.S.No.