THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.974 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri M. V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri N. Vijender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 21.01.2024 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.1348 of 2024 in O.S.No.291 of 2021, which was filed by the revision petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section

151 of C.P.C for rejection of plaint.

3. The respondent herein filed suit against the revision petitioner seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.09.2019. In the said suit, the revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1348 of 2024 seeking rejection of plaint. The relief is sought with respect to suit schedule property consisting of 2/3^rd undivided share of agricultural dry land in Sy.No.608 to an extent of Ac.2-06 guntas or 0.86 Hectors, Sy.No.609 to an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas and Sy.No.633 to an extent of Ac.0-35 guntas in total admeasuring Ac.3-16 guntas situated at Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The I.A. under revision is filed on the ground that the suit agreement has been terminated through legal notice dated 15.01.2021. On account of the said legal notice, the revision petitioner contended that the cause of action ceased on 15.01.2021 when the said agreement of sale was cancelled. The time was essence of the suit agreement and the suit agreement is legally terminated as there is failure to pay balance sale consideration on or before 01.10.2019. Therefore, there is no subsisting agreement available for specific performance as on the date of filing of the suit. The respondent did not seek declaration of termination of suit agreement as illegal and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

4. There was an ongoing litigation from the year 2002 with respect to suit schedule property and the right, title and interest of the revision petitioner were subject to result of the litigation. The respondent entered into agreement of sale during the pendency of litigation. As right to specific performance is contingent on result of the appeal pending from the previous litigation, only when the rights of the revision petitioner are upheld in A.S.No.210 of 2010, the respondent would have a right to seek specific performance of the suit agreement. There was no cause of action for filing of suit for specific performance when A.S.No.210 of 2010 was pending. It is pleaded that deliberately pendency of the said appeal is not mentioned and clever drafting is employed to make illusory cause of action in the plaint. Reference is made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindhbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, AIR 2020 SC 3310 and it is pleaded that documents filed along with the plaint alone are to be taken into consideration for application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and when a document referred to in the plaint forms basis of the plaint, it should be treated as part of the plaint. The revision petitioner filed written statement alleging that the respondent is not entitled to relief of specific performance and that there is no cause of action. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.S.Sikandar v. K. Subramani, MANU/SC/1093/2013 and Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, MANU/SC/0285/1993 and also to the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Challapalli Venkateswar Rao v. Meka Gangadhara Rao, MANU/AP/0733/2017 and the plaint is sought to be rejected.

5. The I.A. under revision was opposed by the respondent before the trial Court denying lack of cause of action to seek specific performance while admitting that there is issuance of termination notice to agreement of sale and said termination is refuted by way of reply notice dated 18.02.2021. The revision petitioner has received considerable par