HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1811 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri Mirza Azharulla Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. In compliance with the order dated 20.06.2024, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed proof of service vide memo USR No.60590, dated 25.06.2025. Despite Service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

3. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in I.A.(SR) No.23 of 2022 in O.S.No.756 of 2021 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagr.

4. Respondent herein/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners herein/defendants for perpetual injunction. During pendency of the said suit, petitioners filed I.A.No.23 of 2022 in O.S.No.756 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the said plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action in the plaint. The respondent herein has suppressed about earlier suit vide O.S.No.56 of 2018 filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule property therein and misrepresented that the said suit was decreed. The said suit was actually dismissed as abated on 27.10.2021 on the ground that sole plaintiff therein died. The respondent herein did not mention about the date on which he came into possession of the said property. Therefore, on the said grounds, the petitioners herein sought to reject the plaint.

5. Respondent herein/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application contending that there is no suppression of fact from his side as alleged by the petitioners, and cause of action is a mixed question of law and fact. There is no misrepresentation of the fact in the plaint in O.S.No.756 of 2021.

6. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 03.02.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that cause of action is a mixed question of law and fact and on the said ground that plaint cannot be rejected. There is specific mention by the plaintiff in the plaint that cause of action arose on i.e. 09.07.2021 at Karimnagar. With regard to the earlier suit in O.S.No.56 of 2018, the plaintiff has specifically mentioned about the earlier suit in paragraph No.5 and that O.S.No.56 of 2018 was initially decreed ex parte. The same was set aside. Thereafter, it was dismissed as abated vide order dated 27.10.2021. Therefore, challenging the order, dated 03.02.2021 in I.A.No.23 of 2022 in O.S.No.756 of 2021, the petitioners filed the present revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is no cause of action in the plaint. The plaintiff has misrepresented the facts and suppressed pendency of the earlier suit. Without considering the said aspects, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application to reject the plaint. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in T.Arivandandam vs. T.V.Satyapal, [AIR 1977 SC 2421], Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal, [AIR 2017 SC 2653], Bhargavi Constructions vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, [2017 INSC 867], Mayandi vs. Pandarachamy Thangam vs. Navamani Ammal, [2024 INSC 164] and Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by Lrs.

8. As discussed supra, the present revision is filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 in I.A.No.23 of 22 in O.S.No.756 of 2021 wherein the petitioners sought to reject the plaint. Rejection of plaint is no more res intergra.

4 2019 LawSuit (SC) 1859

6 AIR 2019 SC 1430

9. It is relevant to note that in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), [AIR 2020 SC 3310], the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the object of Order - VII, Rule - 11 (a) and (d) of CPC and rejection of plaint and also nature of enquiry to be made by the Court while deciding an application filed under Order - VII, Rule - 11 (a) of CPC. In the said case, the defendant filed an application under Order - VII, Rule - 11 (a) and (d) to reject the pl