IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA C.R.P.NO.157 OF 2026 DATE: 18.03.2026 Between:

Sri T Anitha Kumar Reddy.

...Petitioner AND Rejintala Vikram Kumar And Another.

...Respondents Mr. Sarat Ram Suryadevara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER:

1. This is the second occasion when learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was given an opportunity to make submissions. Hence, the Court deems it fit to proceed with the matter and decide the CRP.

2. The only submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application (I.A.No.2014 of 2024 in O.S.No.89 of 2023) for rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’).

3. The petitioner is the defendant No.2 in a Suit (O.S.No.89 of 2023) filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale and declaring the Sale Deed as null and void and for perpetual injunction.

4. The petitioner/defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.2014 of 2024 in O.S.No.89 of 2023 for rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the Plaint fails to disclose a cause of action and that the Suit is barred by law, and barred by limitation.

5. The Affidavit filed in support of the petitioner’s contentions states that the Agreement of Sale is dated 02.02.2021 and the cash receipt is dated 02.02.2022, which shows a total failure of consideration at the time of the execution of the Agreement of Sale, which leads the agreement as void ab initio and lacks legal sanctity. The second contention is that the sale transaction was only by way of a cash transaction of Rs.50 lakhs, which is not a valid and legal transaction as per law. The third contention is that the cash transactions of more than Rs.20,000/- are prohibited under The Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. The reasons stated in the Affidavit are incomprehensible and without any particulars, the petitioner also took a vague point with regard to the transaction being barred under section 23 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

7. The Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application on 18.09.2025 on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioner/defendant No.2 were matters of Trial and can be adjudicated only after the parties adduce evidence.

8. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Trial Court correctly found that the contention of the petitioner regarding discrepancies in the dates of the Agreement of Sale and the receipt is a matter for Trial in the Suit. Further, the issue of cash transactions above Rs.20,000/- not being permissible under the provisions of the 1961 Act is also a matter of argument. Further, the admissibility of a compulsorily registrable document without registration or payment of stamp duty also assumes relevance at the time of admitting the document in evidence.

9. The Trial Court hence correctly found that the grounds raised by the petitioner for rejection of the Plaint would be available to the petitioner/defendant No.2 at the time of evidence in the Trial of the Suit.

10. The Trial Court correctly concluded that the petitioner/defendant No.2 failed to satisfy any of the grounds as enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of Plaint.

11. This Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Needless to say, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is already contesting the Suit and shall get an opportunity of bringing all evidence in its defence at the appropriate point of time.

12. CRP No.157 of 2026 is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, along with all connected applications. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J DATE: 18.03.2026 NDS THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA C.R.P.NO.157 OF 2026 DATE: 18.03.2026 NDS