HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ********

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2971 OF 2024 Between :

Dr.Ameera Nazia Begum, w/o.Dr.Athar Mohammed Azharuddin, Aged 29 yrs., occu:Doctor, R/o.H.No.12-2-823/C23, SBI Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

…Revision petitioner/

petitioner/defendant and Sameena Waheda Nazli, w/o. Ahmed Badi Hussain Galib, D/o.late Dr.Mohammed Azharuddin, Aged 45 yrs., occu:Household, r/o.H.No.12-2-790/161, Ayodhya Nagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

…. Respondent/ respondent/

plaintiff DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 09.06.2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether his Lordship wish to : Yes see the fair copy of the Judgment ? __________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY +CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2971 OF 2024 %09.06.2025 Between:

# Dr.Ameera Nazia Begum, w/o.Dr.Athar Mohammed Azharuddin, Aged 29 yrs., occu:Doctor, R/o.H.No.12-2-823/C23, SBI Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

…Revision petitioner/

petitioner/defendant Vs.

$ Sameena Waheda Nazli, w/o. Ahmed Badi Hussain Galib, D/o.late Dr.Mohammed Azharuddin, Aged 45 yrs., occu:Household, r/o.H.No.12-2-790/161, Ayodhya Nagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

…. Respondent/ respondent/

plaintiff !Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.K.Waghray Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

AIR 2020 SC 3310; AIR 2017 SC 4428; (1998) 2 SCC 70; (2004) 3 SCC 137

2025 SCC OnLine SC 121 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.2971 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

02.09.2024, passed by XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.599 of 2024 in O.S.No.100 of

2024.

2. Heard Sri K.K.Waghray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.11.2023 and for perpetual injunction against the defendant vide O.S.No.100 of 2024 on the file of XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. The defendant entered appearance and filed an application vide I.A.No.599 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11(A) read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of cause of action for filing the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of application, it is averred that plaint does not disclose any cause of action for filing the suit; that the recitals of sale deed bearing document No.6368 of 2023, dated 16.11.2023 clearly shows that entire sale consideration was received by the vendor and therefore, the allegation that the sale deed has to be cancelled and that the same was obtained by fraud is baseless; that the plaintiff is well educated and that except bald, false allegations of coercion, terrorizing etc., without substantiating the same, plaintiff filed the suit; that with cleaver drafting, suit is filed by creating illusory cause of action and finally, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Counter has been filed by the plaintiff contending that she has signed sale deed dated 15.11.2023 in respect of suit schedule property only on constant threats, coercion, undue influence and harassment by the defendant; that she was under impression that agreement of sale was being registered and signed the document without being aware of the contents of the said document and therefore, the allegation that there is no cause of action is false. It is further averred that Memorandum of Understanding was entered to the effect that defendant paid amount for taking care of mother of plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the application.

6. The trial Court, taking into consideration the pleadi