IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD * THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2456 OF 2024 % Delivered on: 23-10-2025 Between # Avirineni Jhansi Lakshmi and another ...Petitioners And $ M/s. Vijayalakshmi 70 MM … Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners : M/s. Vankina, Allu & Partners ^ Counsel for Respondent : Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani < Gist :

> Head Note :

? Cases Referred :

1. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1828

2. AIR 2025 Supreme Court 849

3. (1977) 4 SCC 467 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA * * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2456 of 2024 Between:

Avirineni Jhansi Lakshmi and another ...Petitioners and M/s. Vijayalakshmi 70 MM … Respondent DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 23.10.2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Civil Revision Petition No.2456 of 2024

Order:

The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the order passed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.211 of 2023 in O.S.No.652 of 2023, dated 19.03.2024, wherein, a petition filed under Order 7, Rule

11 of CPC to reject the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Heard M/s. Vankina, Allu & Partners, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record.

3. Initially, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.652 of 2023 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.0-12 Gts., in Sy.No.55, situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded by North: Defendant’s land, South: Neighbours house, East: 30 feet wide road, neighbours building and plaintiff’s plot and West:

Neighbours houses, without following due process of law. After filing of the said suit, the I.A under revision has been filed to reject the plaint for lack of cause of action. The case of the respondent is that there is no written agreement between the parties to the suit, no deposit or advance payment of any amount to the respondent, fixed amount of Rs.30,000/- is paid by the respondent to the petitioners every month from the year 2013 till August, 2023 without escalation and there is an alleged oral lease which is on month to month basis.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the plaint is carefully drafted to create an illusion of cause of action which needs to be nipped in the bud at the earliest. Further, according to the petitioners, the respondent committed fraud on the Court by suppressing the fact that the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 was filed on 15.09.2023 on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Due to non-working days of Court on Saturday, Sunday and Vinayakachavithi, the matter was heard on 20.09.2023. When the respondent failed to secure ad-interim injunction from the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar on the first date of hearing on 20.09.2023, said suit i.e. O.S.No.614 of 2023 has been withdrawn on 21.09.2023. Immediately thereafter, the present suit i.e. O.S.No.652 of 2023 was filed with the same contents, same cause of action, same prayer including the typed content on suit valuation but before a District Court. The petitioners pleaded that the conduct of the respondent is highly objectionable as there is an abuse of process of the Court. It is further stated that the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 was withdrawn after first date of hearing i.e. 20.09.2023, on 21.09.2023 even before summons were served on the petitioners. The petitioners have