IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.4317 OF 2025

DATE : 28.11.2025

Between:

Shaik Abdul Shahid Pasha & Others …Petitioners

AND

Faheemunnisa Begum & Others …Respondents

ORDER:

Heard, Mr.M.W.R Jayakar, learned counsel for the petitioners

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.449 of 2025 in I.A. No.345 of 2025 in O.S. No.18 of 2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla.

3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. The brief facts relevant for adjudication are that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs instituted O.S. No.18 of 2024 seeking partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. During pendency of the

said suit, the respondents/defendants filed I.A. No.345 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by law. Subsequently, the defendants filed I.A. No.449 of 2025 to receive certain documents in support of their contention, which the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 07.11.2025, allowed, permitting reception of the documents subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the trial Court erred in receiving and marking the documents during the pendency of the application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint. It is contended that consideration of such documents at this stage would amount to going beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which mandates that the Court shall confine its consideration solely to the averments made in the plaint, without reference to the defence set up by the defendants or any extraneous material.

4.2. He further submits that the defendants will have adequate opportunity to rely on any documents they choose to produce along with their written statement or at the stage of trial. Receiving and examining those documents at the interlocutory stage, particularly when the maintainability of the plaint itself is under challenge, is premature and procedurally improper. Hence, he prays for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The record reveals that in I.A. No.449 of 2025, the defendants sought to file certain documents contending that they were essential for proper consideration of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The trial Court, while allowing the said application, observed that the documents could be received subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility, and further noted that they may be considered while determining the application for rejection of the plaint.

7. It is well settled through a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court must confine its consideration strictly to the averments contained in the plaint and the documents filed along with it. The pleas raised by the defendant or any document produced by them cannot be looked into for the purpose of determining whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or is barred by law.

8. In the present case, although the trial Court has allowed the defendants to file their documents, it has done so subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility, and has not yet adjudicated upon the question of rejection of the plaint. At this stage, therefore, it would be premature to presume that the trial Court has relied upon or will rely upon such documents while deciding I.A. No.345 of 2025.

9. Nevertheless, this Court finds merit in the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that such documents should not for