THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2357 OF 2025 Mr. B. Dhananjaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Ms. Ch.Kanaka Durga, learned counsel representing Ms.T.Vanaja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 02.04.2025 in I.A.No.50 of 2023 in O.S.No.519 of 2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally dismissing an application filed by the petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.519 of 2022 filed by the respondent.

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners is unable to inform the Court as to the ground under which the IA was filed. Counsel submits that the application was filed on the ground that the suit is not maintainable.

3. Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff is represented.

4. The suit was filed in 2017 in O.S.No.1884 of 2017 and transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.519 of 2022.

5. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. Counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the defendants entered appearance in the suit in 2017 itself. It appears from the documents filed along with the CRP that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction in order to restrain the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondent/plaintiff. In the suit, the respondent/plaintiff also prayed for a direction to the Registrar, SRO, Kukatpally for the replacement of the name and particulars of the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 with that of the respondent/plaintiff in place of the purchaser in the Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.2810 of 2012 dated 04.05.2012 registered at SRO, Kukatpally. Counsel submits that the defendants however filed the IA for rejection of the plaint in 2023 i.e., six years after filing the suit.

6. The only averment made in the I.A to serve as a ground for rejection of the plaint is given in Paragraph No.4 that the relief sought in the suit is ‘against the law’.

7. Further, admittedly, the IA for rejection of the plaint was filed not only after six years of filing of the suit but also at the stage of recording of the evidence of PW2.

8. This Court does not find any error in the reasons given by the Trial Court in the impugned order. The Trial Court therein specifically found that the Suit was filed in 2017 and the I.A pursuant thereto was filed during the stage of cross examination of PW2. Further, the only grounds taken to support the plea for rejection of the plaint were that the respondent/plaintiff had not claimed recovery of possession; the respondent/plaintiff had intended to register the Sale Deed in the name of his wife thereby disentitling him from seeking declaratory relief; and that the relief seeking replacement of name in a registered sale deed is unknown to law. The Trial Court accordingly found the existence of triable issues in the matter, requiring a complete adjudication in the Trial Court and the I.A. was dismissed by observing that the grounds placed by the petitioners/defendants do not come under the purview of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, warranting the rejection of the plaint.

9. There is absolutely no error in the impugned order. The very fact that the petitioners/defendants have disputed the respondent/plaintiff’s title to the suit schedule property as well as the respondent/plaintiff’s prayer espousing his right to replace the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1’s name with that of the respondent/plaintiff in itself raises triable issues which cannot be taken up in a summary manner under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 wherein