##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

C.R.P.No.265 of 2026

Date: 30.01.2026

Between:

Smt.Kallur Nava Saraswathy

...petitioner

AND

Baira Shankar and six others.

...respondents

Mr.M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order,

dated 03.10.2024 in I.A.No.913 of 2022 in O.S.No.424 of

2022 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (‘Trial Court’) dismissing the

said I.A. filed by the petitioner herein for rejection of the

plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of The Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’).

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.5 in a suit

(O.S.No.424 of 2022) filed for declaration and perpetual

injunction. The said suit was filed for setting aside the

decree and judgment dated 09.02.2016 passed in an earlier

2

suit (O.S.No.710 of 2009) which was not binding on the

plaintiff.

3. The subsequent suit was filed in the year 2022 and the

petitioner herein/defendant No.5 filed an application

(I.A.No.913 of 2022) for rejection of the plaint in the suit,

under Clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., on

the ground that the plaint filed in the suit does not disclose

a cause of action and the suit being barred by law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that

the Trial Court should have dismissed the suit, as the plaint

failed to disclose the cause of action. Counsel submits that

the Trial Court failed to consider the earlier judgment and

decree passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge in a

decree dated 09.02.2016 in a suit previously filed by the

defendant No.5. Counsel does not have any arguments to

place on Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. where the

suit was barred by the law.

5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned

order.

6. Paragraph No.6 of the impugned order makes it clear

that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and that he is

3

the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule

property, asserting that the same was purchased from the

defendant No.1 under the sale deed, which was pending for

registration. The plaintiff further sought a declaration that

the sale deed dated 20.03.1984 in favour of the defendant

No.5 is null and void with a consequential relief for the

cancellation of the said sale deed. The Trial Court duly noted

the contention of the petitioner/defendant No.5 that the

petitioner purchased the suit schedule property prior to the

plaintiff in the year 1984 and that the petitioner thereafter

filed the suit for declaration and consequential relief of

injunction against the defendant No.1 and other parties vide

O.S.No.710 of 2009.

7. Paragraph No.10 of the impugned order records that for

deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.,

only the averment made in the plaint are to be considered.

Paragraph No.11 further records the finding of the Trial

Court that the plaint discloses a sufficient cause of action

against the defendant No.5 and the plaint cannot be rejected

at the threshold and the Trial Court also records that

though several contentions were levelled in the suit, and the

same can be decided after full-fledged trial.

4

8. This Court does not find any error in the findings of the

Trial Court, particularly since the contention of the

petitioner/defendant No.5 involve disputed question of facts

and that can only be determined through a Trial. The

affidavit filed by the petitioner to the I.A. also make it clear

that the petitioner has raised contentious issues regarding

the title and possession of the suit schedule property as well

as the legal effect of the earlier suit (O.S.No.710 of 2009).

The Trial Court was of the correct view that such disputed

questions are worthy of Trial and that the plaint filed in the

Suit cannot be rejected at the outset on the absence of

cause of action.

9. This Court does not find