APHC010446132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3163]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2193/2025 Between:

1. CARIN COMMERCIALS PVT LTD.,, REP. BY ITS ASST. VICE PRESIDENT, SHAIKH FAHAD, DOOR NO. 1012, A, TOWER, PBEL CITY, HYDERABAD.

2. . M/S RAKSHITA COMMERCIALS PVT LTD,, REP. BY ITS ASST.

VICE PRESIDENT, SHAIKH FAHAD, DOOR NO. 1012, A, TOWER, PBEL CITY, HYDERABAD.

3. M/S NETRAVATI COMMERCIALS PVT LTD,, REP. BY ITS ASST.

VICE PRESIDENT, SHAIKH FAHAD, DOOR NO.1012, A, TOWER, PBEL CITY, HYDERABAD. (ALL OF THEM ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR AUTHORIZED PERSON/GPA HOLDER BY NAME SHAIKH FAHAD, S/O. SHAIKH SAOUD, MUSLIM, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O.

HYDERABAD.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. MUTTAVARAPU MURALI KRISHNA, S/O. LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 65 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO.40-3-9, KRISHNANAGAR, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 010.

2. M/S SIVA CREDITS PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MUTTAVARAPU MURALI KRISHNA, S/O. LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 65 YEARS, C/O. 2ND FLOOR, SWARNA LOK COMPLEX, ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 002.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the present C.R.P. by setting aside the orders dated 15th day of April, 2025 in I.A. No.928 of2018inO.S. No.11 of 2017 on the file of XVI Additional District Judge, Nandigama and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.11 of 2017 on the file of the learned XVI Addl. District Judge, Nandigama, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T V P SAI VIHARI The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 15.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.928 of 2018 in O.S.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Nandigama, whereby, the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, was dismissed, the instant revision is preferred by the petitioners.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the plaint for the sake of convenience.

4. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit before the trial Court. The plaintiffs therein filed the suit for declaration of their title in respect of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. The defendants have opposed the said claim by way of filing written statement. Several pleas have been taken by the defendants, opposing the claim of the plaintiffs. While the suit is pending trial, the defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order. The trial Court has passed a detailed order and held that there is no case made out for rejection of the plaint.

5. Order VII Rule 11 enumerates the grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. The defendants have filed the application on the first ground alleging that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. But, a perusal of the plaint makes it manifest that the plaint in fact clearly discloses a cause of action.

6. Para No.11 of the plaint is relevant in the context to consider. It reads thus:

“11. While matters stood thus; in the first week of March, 2017, it has come to the notice of the plaintiffs that some persons said to be the directors/authorized representatives of the Defendants have been visiting Paritala Village, where the plaint schedule lands are situated, and canvassin