THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, at Vemulawada in I.A.No.357 of 2016 in OS.No.112 of 2015, dated 06.01.2023, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) r/w Section 151 of CPC.

2. Petitioner is the petitioner in IA.No.357 of 2016 and defendant No.2 in the suit i.e., OS.No.112 of 2015. Respondent No.1 is the respondent No.1 in the I.A. and plaintiff in the suit. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the above said I.A. and defendant Nos.1 and 3 in the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below without considering the purport of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC simply dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner has not made out any case by raising substantial grounds for rejection of plaint. Counsel submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.112 of 2015 after 11 years of the alleged simple sale deed dated 16.02.2004 which is barred by law. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the respondent No.2 herein is the original owner and possessor of the suit land and she sold the said land to defendant Nos.2 and 3 (petitioner and respondent No.3 herein) jointly through registered sale deed vide document No.6512 of 2013, dated 26.11.2013 and later respondent No.3-defendant No.3 executed a bond in favour of the petitioner on 15.12.2014 and since then he is in possession of the suit property. Respondent No.2-defendant No.1 has filed suit in OS.No.54 of 2010 for perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property and respondent No.1-plaintiff is having knowledge of filing of the suit but he failed to file counter claim for specific performance of simple sale deed dated 16.02.2004. The learned trial Court has not taken the same into consideration and erroneously dismissed the application for rejection of plaint. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala and Co.1

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties, rightly arrived at a conclusion that on 19.11.2015 there was a refusal to execute the registered sale deed and also refusal to cancel the registered sale deed No.6512 of 2013 dated 26.11.2013, rightly observed that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, no

1 2025 (2) ALT (SC) 1 (D.B.)

interference is called for. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of Urvashiben and Another Vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi, (2019) 13 SCC 372 and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

6.1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed suit in OS.No.112 of 2015 on 29.12.2015. It is stated in the plaint that respondent No.2-defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the agricultural dry land bearing Sy.No.74/ఆ admeasuring Acs.04-35 guntas and she sold the land to the respondent No.1-plaintiff on 16.02.2004 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. Respondent No.2- defendant No.1 having received the entire sale consideration, executed a simple sale deed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff on the same day in the presence of witnesses, s