The Hon’ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao Civil Revision Petition No.2336 of 2025

Order:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in I.A.No.284 of 2024 in O.S.No.61 of 2017.

2. Heard Mr.V.Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. This Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. Hence, notice in respect of respondent is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.61 of 2017 for recovery of Rs.1,04,22,870/- against the petitioner/defendant before the Court below on 07.12.2011. In the said suit, the plaintiff has not specifically mentioned the cause of action and the suit filed by the respondent is barred by limitation. The petitioner filed I.A.No.284 of 2024 invoking the provisions under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation as well as cause of action. The Court below, without properly appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner and averments made in the application, erroneously dismissed the said I.A.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the respondent filed suit in O.S. No.61 of 2017 against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,04,22,870/- along with interest, on 07.12.2011, and the petitioner filed written statement on 16.07.2017, after lapse of more than three years. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 284 of 2024, in the month of December, 2023, to reject the plaint. In the said I.A., the petitioner averred as follows:

“I humbly beg to submit that the plain reading of plaint clearly discloses, it was not pleaded in the plaint how the suit was within period of limitation. Apparently the plaint discloses, the suit was not within the period of limitation. The suit is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute a suit within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. So that I am advised to file this application to reject the plaint. There are no willful latches on my part.

Hence I pray the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to reject the plaint as barred by limitation and pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit to order in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

6. The record further reveals that the plaintiff in para No.4 of the plaint specifically averred the cause of action for filing the suit. In para No.6 of the plaint, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the suit is within the period of limitation. It is very much relevant to mention that the limitation aspect is a mixed question of fact and law and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial.

7. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property1 and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that though in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Court has to look into the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone. The Court cannot at that stage look into the written statement or the documents filed along with the written statement.

8. In Mustigulla @ Namaswamy Hemanth Kumar v. Abhaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And others, 2016 (6) ALD 598 (DB), the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held that rejection of plaint on the ground of res judicata, cause of action, under valuation, limitation have to be decided on trial but the same cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint,

1 (1998) 7 SCC 184

especially when the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. are not satisfied.

9. In the case on hand, the petitioner without mentioning any specific reasons in the application simply pleaded that the