The Court reaffirmed that a cause of action existing from specific pleadings must be considered, and issues of document admissibility are to be resolved during trial.

ORDER:

In compliance with the order dated 02.05.2025, learned counsel for petitioners has filed a memo vide USR.No.51558 dated 09.06.2025 along with postal acknowledgment card in respect of learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein, in the trial Court in O.S.No.754 of 2024 and returned postal covers with an endorsement ‘addressee left’ in respect of the respondents. As the notice is served on the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is deemed that the respondents are served.

2. Despite service of notice on the respondents, there is no representation for the respondents.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in I.A.No.351 of 2024 in O.S.No.754 of

2024.

5. Respondents herein have filed suit vide O.S.No.754 of 2024 against petitioners/defendants seeking perpetual injunction. During pendency of the said suit, petitioners have filed I.A. vide I.A.No.351 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the following grounds 1) respondents/plaintiffs filed the said suit basing on the unregistered lease deed, and 2) there is no cause of action. Respondents filed counter opposing the said I.A. contending that the aforesaid two grounds are triable issues and the cause of action is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, on the said ground, plaint cannot be rejected. Thereupon, vide order under revision dated 27.03.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed the said I.A. holding that there is a cause of action and it is a mixed question of law and facts and the admissibility of the documents can be considered at the stage of trial. Challenging the said order, petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court failed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners. In the plaint, there is no averment with regard to the cause of action and lease deed is an unregistered document. The trial Court did not consider the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the order under revision dated 27.03.2025 is contrary to the record.

7. As discussed supra, O.S.No.754 of 2024 is filed for perpetual injunction. In paragraph No.5 of the plaint, respondents/plaintiffs have specifically pleaded with regard to the agreement dated 30.03.2024 entered by the plaintiffs and 15.04.2024 is the date on which the plaintiffs paid advance amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and 01.08.2024 is the date of commencement of lease and from 15.09.2024, the petitioners/defendants continuously trespassed into the suit schedule property. Further, again on 01.10.2024, the defendants interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded about the said dates and the cause of action in the plaint. The plaintiffs have also specifically pleaded about the cause of action in paragraph No.8 of the plaint. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners/defendants that there is no cause of action for filing the above said suit by the respondents/plaintiffs is untenable. The trial Court has considered the said aspects and held that the plaintiffs have pleaded the cause of action specifically.

8. With regard to the second contention of the petitioners that the respondents filed the above said suit basing on the unregistered lease deed, it is rightly held by the trial Court that the said aspect can be considered at the time of trial and admissibility of the documents will be looked into at the stage of trial. On the said ground, the plaint cannot be rejected.

9. The Apex Court