An application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of a plaint cannot be sustained on grounds involving mixed questions of fact and law, such as limitation or the precise identification of property in a partition suit, which require trial evidence.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 18.07.2025, passed in I.A.No.306 of 2024 in O.S.No.173 of 2024 (Old O.S.No.239 of 2018) by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, whereby, the application, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C., filed by the petitioner-defendant No.5 seeking to reject the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Heard Dr. Gonu Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Venkataswamy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri V. Krishna Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent No.8.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that, O.S.No.173 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking partition of the suit schedule properties claiming them to be the ancestral properties. I.A.No.306 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner-defendant No.5 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed the present application i.e., I.A.No.306 of 2024, under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., raising four grounds, firstly, there is no cause of action, secondly, the Suit is undervalued and deficit Court fee was paid, thirdly, the Suit is barred by limitation and fourthly, the suit schedule property is not properly identified, and that the trial Court failed to answer all these grounds. He further submitted that the Suit is bad in the eye of law, as it is hit by all these four grounds under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint, but it failed to appreciate the said grounds and dismissed the present application. He further submitted that the plaint discloses vexatious litigation and it is absolutely barred by limitation and further, that respondent No.1 herein has failed to make proper identity of the suit schedule property. He further submitted that the Suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 18.07.2025, and consequently, reject the plaint. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Pratibha Singh and another¹(2003) 2 SCC 330 and Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemanth Vithal Kamat and others ²2021 LawSuit (SC) 408.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff submitted that the question of limitation and cause of action are mixed questions of fact and law and therefore, they cannot be decided at the threshold. He further submitted that prima facie the plaint discloses the cause of action. He further submitted that as far as the Court fee is concerned, the Court fee is properly calculated and paid under Section 24 of the Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, ‘the Act’) and if at all the Court fee is found to be deficit, at the end of the trial also, the Court can order for payment of deficit court fee and there is no impediment on that ground. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has mentioned the schedule of property and that the boundaries of the land in each Survey Number cannot be mentioned at this juncture, because the extent available for partition would be made out only after the trial. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petiti