THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.398 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-

defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the order passed in IA No.532 of 2024 in OS No.115 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Alampur.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein in OS No.115 of 2023 and the petitioners herein had earlier filed IA No.532 of 2024 in OS No.115 of 2023 under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(b)(c) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint filed by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 / respondents herein on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a valid cause of action and as such it can be safely rejected and the cause of action is vexatious, illusory and barred by limitation. Further to pursue a suit for Easement and permanent injunction, the respondents/plaintiffs must establish the existence of a legal right or interest which is being violated or threatened. Further there is no prima-facie case and the balance of convenience are also not in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and also there is no irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs, if the injunction order is not granted, as the main suit is filed on false and vexatious grounds and that there is no locus standi to file a suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that respondents/plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 have filed the suit for easement right and injunction without declaration of title which is bad in law and the suit filed for bare injunction without declaration of title is illegal and the suit filed for not to interfere in the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit without having a valid legal right, title, possession and interest in the plaint schedule property is not maintainable in law.

5. It is also further contended that the respondents/plaintiffs did not paid any Court fee as claimed for easement right under Section 30 of T.S.C.F. & S.V.Act and that the main ingredients under Section 30 relating to Court Fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the court; whichever is higher and further the respondents/plaintiffs did not paid Court fee for declaration. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the false suit by suppressing the actual facts in order to harass and extract unlawful gains from defendants Nos.1 to 3.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the learned trial Court did not consider the said above pleadings and dismissed the petitioner i.e., IA No.532 of 2024 in OS No.115 of 2023, dated 30.12.2024.

7. This Court having perused the entire material on record including the orders of the trial Court and the main affidavit and petition filed by the petitioner herein and the counter in the IA No.532 of 2024 and the averments of the plaint and the point which arose for consideration is whether the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and whether the petitioners has made out any grounds to reject the plaint under order VII Rule

11 (a) (b)(c) of CPC.

8. Having heard counsel for the petitioners/defendants and counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

9. Admittedly, it is a suit which is filed against the defendants claiming the following reliefs for:

(a) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant their heirs, agents, assignees, men or anybody on their behalf or claiming through them from obstructing plaintiffs’ peaceful enjoyment over the “RRR” way.

(b) Granting costs of the suit.

(c) Granting any such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice”

10. And, it is the case of the petitioners that before the trial Court is on different grounds, one among being that there is no valid cause of action