THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2430 OF 2025

ORDER

This Revision has been filed challenging the proprietary decree and order dated 13.02.2025 in I.A. No.477 of 2023 in O.S. No.251 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-

cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimanagar.

2. Heard Mr. Merugu Srinivas, Party-in-person for the petitioners and Mr. Gummalla Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondents, as plaintiffs, filed a suit seeking partition of the schedule properties. The revision petitioners/defendants, in turn, filed an interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint. The Court below, after considering the pleadings, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners/defendants preferred the present revision.

4. The petitioners, appearing in person, contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit is barred by limitation, which squarely falls under clause (d) of Rule 11. They further submit that the suit has been undervalued and that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. According to them, the trial Court improperly evaluated both the facts and the law, and therefore prays for interference in revision and to reject the plaint.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit seeks partition of properties among co-sharers, and at the stage of deciding an application for rejection of the plaint, only the plaint averments are to be considered. He argues that the trial Court correctly evaluated the pleadings and rightly observed that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and that valuation of property can be addressed at an appropriate stage. He further contends that dismissal of the plaint at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs, whereas allowing the suit to proceed would not affect the interests of the petitioners/defendants, who retain full opportunity to raise their objections during trial and at subsequent stages of adjudication. The issues of limitation, valuation, and cause of action may appropriately be considered during the framing and determination of issues. Accordingly, the petition lacks legal merit, and the revision deserves dismissal.

8. I have perused the materials on record.

9. The core contention of the revision petitioners/defendants is that the suit schedule properties had already been partitioned in the year 2006. Consequently, according to them, the filing of the present suit in 2022 is clearly barred by limitation. They further assert that since the parties are already in separate possession of their respective shares, the claim for joint possession and the payment of a fixed Court fee is untenable. In their view, there was no occasion for instituting the present partition suit, and the cause of action pleaded in the plaint lacks any legal or factual basis.

10. It is well settled that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of a plaint, the Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and not the defence set up by the defendants. The test is whether, on a plain reading of the plaint, it discloses a cause of action, is properly valued, sufficiently stamped, and not barred by law. If any of these conditions is not satisfied, the plaint must be rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, reiterated this principle, emphasizing that the plaint should be rejected only if it fails to disclose a cause of action on its face. Similarly, in Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 15 SCC 614, the Court cautioned that rejection of a plaint at the threshold is a drastic measure and therefore the power must be exercised with circumspection and only in cases where the defect is apparent o