THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2587 OF 2023

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants against the order dated 14.06.2023 in I.A.No. 340 of 2021 in O.S.No. 201 of 2021 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda (for short ‘the trial Court’), wherein, the I.A. filed to reject the plaint, is dismissed.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the above O.S. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties i.e., plot bearing Nos.1 to 5 covered under the registered sale deed bearing document No. 3375 of 1991 dated 09.10.1991 and plot bearing Nos.12 to 16 covered under the registered sale deed bearing document No.3380 of 1001 dated 10.10.1991 situated in Survey No. 495 of Mamillagudem village, Nalgonda District. According to the plaintiffs, though deceased husband of plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, the defendants obtained injunction order dated 09.05.2018 in O.S. No. 148 of 2011 with the fabricated documents. It is stated that husband of plaintiff No.1 expired on 01.08.2018 and thereafter, upon receiving the certified copy of the said injunction order on 15.02.2019, immediately, the plaintiffs filed the present suit by collecting relevant material records. Later, the defendants filed I.A. No. 340 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, to reject the plaint as the same is barred by limitation Act.

4. By the impugned order dated 14.06.2023, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as Sri E.Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants submitted that the suit is barred by limitation. He further contended that though the cause of action arose in the years 1991 and 1995, the present suit is filed in the year 2021 after expiry of limitation period. He also submitted that the petitioners got injunction order in their favour in respect of the suit schedule properties in O.S. No. 148 of 2011. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shiva Kumar Sharma vs. Santhosh Kumari¹ and prayed the Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition setting aside the impugned order.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the respondents have filed the suit by mentioning all the material facts disclosing the complete cause of action. He further submitted that the law of limitation involves question of fact and law, which can be decided after full trial. He also submitted that the petitioners fabricated the documents and got injunction order in O.S. No. 148 of 2011. In support of his submissions, he

(2007) 8 SCC 600

placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Balasari Constructions (P) Ltd vs. Hanuman Seva Trust and others², Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited vs. Central Bank of India and others³ and prayed the Court to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

8. In view of the rival submissions made by both the counsel, this Court has perused the record. It is apparent that trial Court, while passing orders in favour of the revision petitioners, granted liberty to the plaintiffs for filing suit for declaration. It is noteworthy that when there is factual dispute with regard to the possession and title over the suit schedule properties, at this stage, this Court cannot decide the same as the said fact has to be decided after full-fledged trial. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that t