O R D E R :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dt.24.04.2024 in IA.No.1026 of 2023 in OS.No.162 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Devarakonda.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the above suit filed by respondent/plaintiff. The said suit was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners/ defendants from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, perpetually.

4. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array in the suit.

5. The defendants in the suit filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1026 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in OS.No.162 of 2020 with exemplary costs, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action basing on the pleadings and documents; and that the plaintiff is claiming the suit schedule land on the basis of a Will Deed without filling the said document to show as to when the said Will Deed was executed.

6. The defendants further claim that the plaintiff had filed the suit by resorting to suppression and misrepresentation of fact of the interim injunction obtained by him in IA.No.1510 of 2018 in OS.No.419 of 2018 dt.27.11.2018 in respect of the same suit schedule property, was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court by order dt.17.02.2023 in CRP.No.773 of 2022, and also the proceeding, by which the subject land was mutated on to the name of the plaintiff was also stayed by the RDO in the appeal filed by the 4^th defendant. It is also contended that as the plaintiff suppressing the said proceeding of the RDO, had obtained ex-parte temporary injunction in IA.No.258 of 2020 in the underlying suit, as affirmed by the 1^st appellate court in CMA.No.19 of 2021, the above said orders were set aside by the Hon’ble High Court in CRP.No.773 of 2022 by holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for being granted with an order of temporary injunction.

7. The defendants further contend that the Court below had shut its eyes to take the above facts into consideration while considering the underlying application filed for rejection of plaint and thus failed to understand the fundamental principle of Civil Law that multiplicity of litigation should be avoided by allowing continuation of the suit, and thus, ought to have allowed the underlying interlocutory application rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff.

8. It is also further pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff is claiming title and possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of a false, fraudulent documents and by suppressing material fact as to the order of status quo order passed in IA.No.1510 of 2018 in OS.No.419 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Nalgonda, being in force. It is thus, contended that the subject matter of the suit is hit by doctrine of lis pendence, and the Court below ought to have rejected plaint by allowing the underlying interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

9. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy vs. M.Mallappa & Anr., [Civil Appeal No.5577 of 2021, dt.07.09.2021] Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji v. Namboodiyil Vinodan, [Civil Appeal Nos.5575-5576 of 2021, dt.07.09.2021] and Jharkhand State Housing Board v.

Didar Singh & Anr.3

10. I have taken note of the aforesaid submissions made.

3 Civil Appeal No.8241 of 2009, dt.09.10.2018

11. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions urged on behalf of the defendants, it would be apposite to refer to the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC:

“11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a)