HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2604 OF 2024

ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed questioning the validity and legality of the order dated 05.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.996 of 2022 in OS.No.630 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. By the impugned order, the application filed by revision petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking to reject the plaint in OS.No.630 of 2022 was dismissed.

3. Heard Sri Muhammad Veqar Hussain, learned counsel for revision petitioner. Despite service of notice on the respondents, there is no representation on their behalf, hence, the matter is being disposed of basing on the material available on record.

4. The petitioner is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.1 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

5. In nut-shell, the facts of the case, required for disposal of the present Revision Petition, are that plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit against the defendants to declare himself and his mother as legal possessors of the suit schedule property, and not tenants or trespassers thereof, and also to declare the sale deed bearing document No.1955 of 2022 dated 11.04.2022 as null and void and to cancel the same; that when the said suit was pending adjudication, defendant No.2 filed an application in IA.No.No.996 of 2022 to reject the plaint.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, defendant No.2 averred that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property; that plaintiff and his mother, who is his guardian, are tenants of the suit schedule property; that defendant No.1 sold away the suit schedule property to defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed, dated 11.04.2022; and that defendant No.2 having terminated the tenancy, filed a suit for eviction in O.S.No.821 of 2022 on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, which is pending adjudication. It was further averred that the suit schedule property is the self- acquired property of defendant No.1, as such, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the said property and that, suppressing all the said material facts, the plaintiff filed suit-OS.No.630 of 2022 and hence, the said suit is not maintainable and accordingly, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

7. Opposing the said application, the plaintiff filed counter contending that defendant No.2 failed to mention the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., under which clause of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the said application to reject the plaint is filed and hence, the said application is liable to be dismissed in limine.

8. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.10.2023 dismissed the application with an observation that in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it has to be only seen as to whether the plaintiff has shown cause of action or not and further, observed that bare perusal of pleadings of plaint, clearly manifests that the cause of action arose in the year 2017 when the plaintiff’s father left the plaintiff and his mother for no apparent reason and when the plaintiff’s mother filed Maintenance Case before the Family Court at Nellore in the year 2021 and when plaintiff’s mother received notice dated 19.05.2022 for eviction. The trial Court further observed that the contention of defendant No.2 that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit is not a ground for rejection of plaint as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.2.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 submitted that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1, as such, the plaintiff and his mother have no right over the same and have no locus standi to file the suit and hence