IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION.NO.3872 OF 2023 DATED: 13^th FEBRUARY, 2026 BETWEEN :

Mr.Edouard Janssen, S/o.Danial Janssen, Rep. by his Specific Power of Attorney Holder, Ms.Manjula Singh Chawla, D/o.Late Ajit Singh Chawla, … Petitioner-Petitioner -Defendant AND Anjani Paravas, W/o.B.Prasad Paravas, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.2-2-647/a36, Saibaba Nagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Shivam Road, Hyderabad-500 013.

…Respondent-Respondent -Plaintiff

ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in IA.No.3383 of 2018 in OS No.691 of 2018, dated

03.10.2023.

2. Petitioner is the sole defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.691 of 2018.

3.1. Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner-defendant by name Dhiraj Kumar Singh has filed petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to reject the plaint and to award costs. Interlocutory application number mentioned in the affidavit is I.A.No.3318 of 2018. In the impugned order I.A. number mentioned is I.A.No.3383 of 2018, the same I.A number is mentioned in the revision.

3.2. It is stated in the affidavit that respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit without any cause of action. The plaint is mala fide, vexatious, groundless and is liable to be dismissed under clause (a) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for the reason that the respondent- plaintiff has no cause of action against the petitioner-defendant and the plaint does not disclose either any cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court or the subject matter of adjudication. The events, incidents and narration of facts thereto are set out in the plaint and all documents filed in support of the plaint relate to an alleged wrong doing in USA on the part of the petitioner-defendant against respondent-plaintiff’s daughter who is also a permanent resident of New York and runs a business set up in the New York City. Neither the petitioner nor any of the events, incidents and narration of facts thereto have any connection or bearing on the respondent-plaintiff or a privity with her. The plaint sets out vague and flimsy facts relating to the respondent-plaintiff’s endurance of emotional suffering and countless health issues. Respondent-plaintiff learnt in India about the aforesaid alleged incident which took place on 4th July, 2017 by way of a phone call, whatsapp messages and e-mail from the respondent-plaintiff’s daughter much after the the alleged incident and that no fact or pleading in the plaint indicates her presence in USA to witness the alleged wrong doing. There is no cause of action in the suit which could be subject matter of adjudication and prayed to reject the plaint.

4. Respondent-plaintiff has filed counter and contended that the original Power of Attorney is not produced before the Court and it is false to state that the petitioner-defendant is permanent resident of USA and the respondent-plaintiff is not aware of the position of the petitioner - defendant. Solvey Company belongs to the family of the petitioner-defendant which has been present in India since 50 years. The averments in the plaint shall be decided at the time of trial by adducing evidence from both the parties and the petitioner-defendant is disputing the cause of action set out in the plaint. As such, the petitioner-defendant himself admitting that the cause of action arose as per the averments of the plaint. The contention raised by the petitioner-defendant that the cause of action disclosed is vague and incomplete is not a ground for rejection of the plaint. Cause of action is a mixed question of law and the same has to be decided after considering the entire material and after full-fledged trial. As per Clause (c) to Section 20, a sui