Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12400

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Harinath.N, J
Karri Sambaiah – Appellant
Versus
Bellamkonda Narasimha Rao – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1209 & 1210 OF 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Phani Teja Cheruvu
For the Respondents: Doddala Prudhvi Teja

An application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC is limited to determining if the plaint discloses a cause of action; the court cannot adjudicate the merits, admissibility of documents, or evidentiary validity at the threshold stage, as these questions are reserved for the trial process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Scope of inquiry - Court is required to examine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action - At the stage of considering an application for rejection of plaint, the Court cannot go into the merits, admissibility of documents, or evidentiary value of the agreement - Such matters are to be adjudicated during full-fledged trial. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed civil revision petitions challenging the trial court's order refusing to reject a plaint for specific performance. The petitioners contended that the subject land had lost its character as assigned land, the agreement was void, the property as described in the suit schedule did not exist, and there was no cause of action. The trial court had dismissed the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11, leading to these petitions.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action by referring to dates and events. The court refused to delve into the legality of the agreement or the competence of the parties, noting that such inquiries are premature at the interlocutory stage and must be determined by the trial court after evidence is presented.

Issues: Whether the plaint in the suit for specific performance lacked a cause of action warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is strictly confined to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. The court must refrain from conducting a mini-trial or examining the validity of documents or evidentiary proof at this threshold stage, leaving such issues for trial.

Result: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the parties and the nature of the challenge to the lower court's decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the void nature of the suit agreement and the absence of a cause of action. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. respondents' arguments maintaining the existence of a valid cause of action and procedural sufficiency of the plaint. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. legal standard for order vii rule 11 applications prohibiting merits review at the threshold. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. conclusion that the plaint discloses a cause of action, upholding the trial court order. (Para 17 , 18)

C.R.P.No.1209 OF 2022

Between:

1.KARRI SAMBAIAH, , S/ O. LATE NAGENDRAM, AGED ABOUT 36

YRS,OCC- S.0 RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO-5-19-17,

ITHANAGAR,TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522201.

2.SMT. MEDIDA SUMATHI ,, W/O. PRABHUDAS, AGED ABOUT 41

YRS,OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O TALAYAPALEM,THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST-522503.

3.ARGELA SUBHASHINI,, W/O. SUBBA RAO , AGED ABOUT 34

YRS,OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO-7-20-293, 13TH LANE,SARADA

COLONY, GUNTUR CITY -522002.

4.SMT. JALA SWAPNA,, W/O. RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YRS,OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO- 10-141, KOPALLE GUDIVADA VILLAGE, TENALLI RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST -522307

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1.BELLARNKONDA NARASIMHA RAO PLAINTIFF, S/O. LATE

NAGESWARA RAO , AGED ABOUT 75 YRS ,OCC- EX-SARPANCH

OF VENKATAPALEM VILLAGE, R/O. VENKATAPALEM VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DIST -522503

2.SMT KARRI RANI DEFENDANT NO 1, W/O. LATE NOVAKU, AGED

ABOUT 34 YRS,OCC- HOUSE WIFE, RIO. VENKATAPALEM

VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DIST-522503

(RESPONDENT NO.2 IS THE FORMAL PARTY AS PER COMMON

ORDER IN I.A NOS.700/2019 AND772/2019 IN 0.S NO.35/2019

DT.16.03.2022 ON THE FILE OF SR.CIVIL JUDGE COURT, MANGALAGIRI .HENCE NOT NECESSARY)

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.PHANI TEJA CHERUVU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA

C.R.P.No: 1210 OF 2022

Between:

1.SMT. KARRI RANI, W/O LATE NOVAKU, AGED ABOUT 34

YRS,OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. VENKATAPALEM VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DIST-522503.

...PETITIONER

AND

1.BELLAMKONDA NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO , AGED ABOUT 75 YRS ,OCC. EX-SARPANCH OF VENKATAPALEM

VILLAGE, R/O. VENKATAPALEM VILLAGE, THULLURU

MANDAL,GUNTUR DIST -522503.

2.KARRI SAMBAIAH, S/O. LATE NAGENDRAM, AGED ABOUT 36

YRS,OCC. S.0 RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.5-19-17,

ITHANAGAR,TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522201.

3.SMT MEDIDA SUMATHI, W/O. PRABHUDAS, AGED ABOUT 41

YRS,OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O TALAYAPALEM,THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST-522503.

4.ARGELA SUBHASHINI, W/O. SUBBA RAO , AGED ABOUT 34

YRS,OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.7-20-293, 13TH LANE,SARADA

COLONY, GUNTUR CITY -522002.

5.SMT JALA SWAPNA, W/O. RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YRS,OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 10-141, KOPALLE GUDIVADA VILLAGE, TENALLI RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST -522307.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.PHANI TEJA CHERUVU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA

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 topleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned Common Order and Decree passed in I.A NoS.700/2019 and 772/2019 in O.S No.35/2019, Dt.16.03.2022 on the file The Senior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri and consequently allow the I.A No.700/2019 in O.S No.35/2019 and thereby reject the Plaint in O.S No.35/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court,Mangalagiri and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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 pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings in 0.S No.35/ 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court at Mangalagiri,Guntur District pending disposal of CRP in the interest of Justice

The Court made the following Common Order :

Date of reserve : 16.03.2026

Date of pronouncement : 09.04.2026

Date of Upload : 09.04.2026

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12400

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHHarinath.N, JKarri Sambaiah – AppellantVersusBellamkonda Narasimha Rao – RespondentCIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1209 & 1210 OF 2022

An application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC is limited to determining if the plaint discloses a cause of action; the court cannot adjudicate the merits, admissibility of documents, or evidentiary validity at the threshold stage, as these questions are reserved for the trial process.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Harinath.N, J
Karri Sambaiah – Appellant
Versus
Bellamkonda Narasimha Rao – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1209 & 1210 OF 2022