THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.1574 of 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr. C.Hanumanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The instant Revision has filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is to the order dated 25.02.2025, in I.A.No.166 of 2023 in O.S.No.101 of 2023, passed by the II AJCJ-cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking rejection of the plaint.

4. The ground raised by the petitioners in their application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was, firstly the suit was barred by limitation and, secondly, there is no cause of action enabling the respondent to file the suit.

5. Perusal of the impugned order would reflect that the Trial Court, in fact, has reproduced the contents of the plaint itself wherein the cause of action has been mentioned with categorical date on which the cause of action is said to have arisen. Whether the contention and averment in the said plaint, as is reflected and reproduced in the impugned order also is correct or not, is a matter of evidence which could be decided only after the parties would get the opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions.

6. The objection raised by the petitioners herein also is one which would require evidence to be led by the parties to properly appreciate the objections so raised and so as to decide whether the suit is in fact barred by limitation and whether there was any cause of action that arouse on 14.02.2023.

7. It is by now a well settled position of law that, while deciding a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, all that the Trial Court has to look into are the averments that are reflected in the plaint and decide whether the cause of action and limitation is reflected therein or not. In the instant case, the impugned order itself reproduces the portion dealing with the cause of action in the plaint and which prima facie shows the cause of action as also the date on which the cause of action arouse so as to decide both.

8. In view of the same, this Court does not find that the findings given by the Trial Court based upon the pleadings that is reflected in the plaint to be either erroneous or bad in law so far as the objection that the petitioners have raised and the same stand can be taken in their Written Statement which can be framed as an issue and the Trial Court may decide the same in accordance with law.

9. The instant Revision thus being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

_____________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 13.06.2025 GSD