IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA Between:

Menthula Shashidhar, S/o Satyanarayana … Petitioner And Cherukuri Padma Rao, S/o Late Ramakotaiah …Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 09.06.2025 HON’BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment?

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

3. Whether her Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No _______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY % 09.06.2025 Between:

# Menthula Shashidhar, S/o Satyanarayana .... Petitioner And:

$ Cherukuri Padma Rao, S/o Late Ramakotaiah ....Respondent < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Venu Madhav ^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy ? Cases Referred: 1. (1999) 3 SCC 1

2. 2001 SCC Online AP 979 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3448 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Revision Petition is filed directed against the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.416 of 2023 in OS.No.309 of

2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. In nut-shell, the facts of the case, required for disposal of the present Revision Petition, are that plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit against the defendant for recovery of money on the basis of two separate Ankadas/receipts, dated 15.12.2019; that the defendant entered appearance and filed an application vide I.A.No.416 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the defendant averred that the plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.85 lakhs on 15.12.2019 and executed two separate Ankadas/receipts for a sum of Rs.45 lakhs and Rs.40 lakhs respectively, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month; that a legal notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant on 21.10.2022, for which reply was got issued by the defendant through his counsel on 25.10.2022 denying the debt as well as the relationship between them. However, surprisingly, the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 16.12.2022. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff failed to disclose the mode of payment of suit amount and further, there is no cause of action for filing the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected.

6. A counter was filed on behalf of plaintiff denying the averments made in the application and further, contended that the suit is within the period of limitation with specified cause of action and as such, the application filed by the defendant is vague and not specific, and hence, the plaint cannot be rejected at any stretch of imagination. It was further specifically averred that the allegation of the defendant that no cause of action had arisen for filing the suit cannot be decided summarily and that it is well settled law that question of law and facts cannot be read in isolation and a party cannot be permitted to canvas beyond his/her pleadings to their convenience and as such, the application is untenable and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the application.

7. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 14.09.2022 dismissed the application with an observation that the plaintiff disclosed the cause of action for filing the suit, therefore, the plaint need not be rejected. The trial Court further observed that Ankadas were allegedly executed by the defendant on 15.12.2019 and plaint was presented on 16.12.2022 and as such, the plaint is within the limitation period of three years. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present Revision Petition is fi