ORDER

The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2022 passed in I.A.No.689 of 2021 in O.S.No.636 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, whereunder, the said petition was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs who are respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed O.S.No.636 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C’) seeking following reliefs:

a) To grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, agents, attorneys, servants and all other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, b) to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering, alienating, gifting or raising any loans or entering into any registered/unregistered deeds/agreements in relation to the suit schedule property with any third party, and c) to declare the registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney with possession dated 26.12.2007 on the file of SRO, Gandipet, executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 and unregistered sale deed dated 14.04.2005 validated by District Registrar and Collector, Ranga Reddy District, executed by K.Laxmaiah in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule property, as null and void.

4. The defendants in the said suit who are petitioners herein filed I.A.No.689 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking rejection of the plaint filed in O.S.No.636 of 2020 stating that the suit is not maintainable as there is no piece of land left over for plaintiffs to claim the ownership and that all the plots were sold away during the period from 1994 to 2005, thereby, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek the reliefs as stated supra. It is further stated that the plaint was sought to be filed by the plaintiffs without there being any cause of action and that the suit is barred by limitation. As such, prayed to reject the plaint.

5. In spite of receipt of notices in I.A.No.689 of 2021, the respondents/plaintiffs did not file any counter, as a result of which their right to file counter was forfeited.

6. Basing on the pleadings and after hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.689 of 2021 vide order dated 14.06.2022. Aggrieved thereby, this petition is filed.

7. Heard Sri Das Manupatra, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Murali Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

8. Learned counsel for revision petitioners/defendants submitted that the Court below has mechanically dismissed I.A.No.689 of 2021 without properly examining the grounds for rejection of plaint. Further, it is a settled principle of law that mere reflection of name of person/persons in the column of revenue records does not confer any right or title in his/their favour over the property, as such, the Court below erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the pahanies of the year 2019-20 reflect the name of respondents/plaintiffs. He further submitted that way back in the year 1990 itself, the said lands were converted into non agricultural lands from agricultural lands and were divided into plots and layouts by obtaining permissions from Statutory Authority. Therefore, the Court below ought not to have considered the said pahanies of the year 2019-20.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiffs who are claiming to be in possession of plot NOs.278 and 279 were very much aware that the excavation work of the hill top went on for a period of one and a half year and two bore wells were also dug over the suit schedule property and the revision petitioners also obtained the electricity meters in