THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2817 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2025 in I.A.No.474 of 2024 in O.S.No.148 of 2022 by the Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”)

2. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner/defendant No.3 and respondent No.1 is the respondent/plaintiff. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri B.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P.Suresh Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

4. The learned petitioner counsel submitted that the defendant No.3 has challenged the suit contending that it is not maintainable as there was no cause of action to initiate the suit. He further argued that during the pendency of the suit an amendment was brought about and the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was also allowed impleading the other parties and also that a petition seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for the relief of cancellation of gift deed was also allowed and that further in 2023 recovery of possession was further claimed by the plaintiff by filing another application for amendment. Thus, defendant No.3 filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC contending that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain the suit.

5. The contention of the petitioner-defendant No.3 is that the plaintiff is relying on a Will which does not fall for consideration and that based on that Will, he filed the suit and further that he has not paid the proper Court fee for all the other reliefs claimed by him. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that when the cause of action itself is not made out, the suit is not maintainable and that it ought to have been rejected but the trial Court failed to appreciate the same. He further argued that the suit is barred by limitation, therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court and reject the plaint accordingly.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 – plaintiff has submitted that the petitioner and respondents have a common ancestor i.e. their grandmother. He further argued that the period of limitation commences from the date of Will, from which date the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation and that he has paid the correct Court fee with regard to the entries in the revenue records and therefore, the trial Court has rightly observed the facts on record and has also rightly appreciated the legal position and thus dismissed the petition. Hence, he prayed to uphold the orders passed by the trial Court and dismiss the present petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. I.A.No.474 of 2024 in O.S.No.148 of 2022 was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.148 of 2024. The plaintiff has filed the suit based on a Will deed said to have been executed by the original owner S.Anthamma, who happens to be the grandmother of the parties herein. Said Anthamma died on 02.11.2007 and the Will is dated 17.06.2007. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the suit with a prayer seeking declaration of title in his favour, recovery of possession from the defendants and also for correction of entries in ROR.

9. Since the petition is under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently