THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1279 of 2023

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order, dated 18.11.2022 in I.A.No.360 of 2018 in O.S.No.1554 of 2017 passed by the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal (for short “the trial Court”), whereunder the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking to reject the plaint as not maintainable on the ground of lack of cause of action, no specific boundaries to identify the suit land and on the ground of limitation was dismissed.

2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff, before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties, hereinafter will be referred as per their array before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1554 of 2017 seeking declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction over the suit schedule property.

4. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.360 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(b) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint as not maintainable on the ground of lack of cause of action, no specific boundaries to identify the suit land and also on the ground of limitation. In the said application, it is stated by defendant No.1 that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction over the suit schedule property, which is pending before the trial Court is bad for non-compliance of Order VII Rule 3. Order VII Rule 3 of CPC reads as follows:

“Where the subject matter of the suit is immoval property:- where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identity it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.”

It is submitted by defendant No.1 that where the subject matter of the suit for immovable property was filed and a plaint containing the description of property is not sufficient for identifying the boundaries, such suit cannot be continued. It is also submitted that there are no specific boundaries to identify the petition schedule property and the sale deed relied upon do not have specific boundaries to identify and locate the property, therefore, the grant of relief of mandatory injunction is redundant. It is further submitted that the cause of action was shown as April, 2017 whereas, on 13.11.2017, the suit vide O.S.No.71 of 2017 filed by the plaintiff before the learned Senior Civil Judge was dismissed as withdrawn. Since there is no cause of action for the relief of recovery of possession, the plaintiff failed to show as to when he was ousted from the possession of the property. Further submission is that the plaintiff is seeking multiple reliefs in the suit, without mentioning specific dates of cause of action in respect of ouster has to be pleaded and in the absence of the same, the suit is barred by law of limitation and also for want of sufficient Court Fee and when all the reliefs are different and distinguished, the plaintiff ought to have paid separate Court Fee for each relief and as such, the suit is not maintainable and prayed to reject the same.

5. The plaintiff filed counter affidavit in I.A.No.360 of 2018 denying the contentions of defendant No.1 and submitted that he filed the suit vide O.S.No.71 of 2017 before the learned Senior Civil Judge on 16.10.2017 and when defendant No.1 filed his written statement claiming ownership by virtue of fraudulent documents, he sought permission from the learned Senior Civil Judge to withdraw the suit vide O.S.No.71 of 2017 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, for filing a comprehensive suit and accordingly, the same was withdrawn with permission of lea