##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.275 of 2026

DATED: 31.03.2026

Between:

Maddikunta Srinivas ...Petitioner

AND

Dr.Tadavarthi Srikanth Ram Mohan and others. …Respondents

ORDER:

C.R.P.No.275 of 2026 is filed aggrieved by the numbering of

A.S.No.22 of 2025, on the file of Principal District Judge, Peddapalli District, filed against the Order dated 18.02.2025, passed in I.A.No.446 of 2023 in O.S.No.260 of 2021, on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Sulthanabad.

2. Heard Sri Mahender Battu, learned Counsel, representing Sri

A.Jagan, learned Counsel for the petitioner on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1 has filed a suit vide O.S.No.260 of 2021, for perpetual injunction and also to declare the sale deed No.930 of 2021, dated 20.07.2021, as null and void, against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4; that petitioner herein entered appearance and

LNA,J C.R.P.No.275 of 2026

2

filed an application vide I.A.No.446 of 2023, under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC, 1908’), for rejection of plaint and the same was allowed by the trial Court vide Order dated 18.02.2025; that the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was numbered as A.S.No.22 of 2025. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is

filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has filed an appeal against the Order dated 18.02.2025, passed in I.A.No.446 of 2023, however, the first appellate Court entertained the appeal and numbered the same, without considering the fact that an appeal lies only when the Judgment is passed on merits. He finally prayed to allow the revision petition by setting aside the

numbering of A.S.No.22 of 2025.

5. In the present case, the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint was allowed by the trial Court vide Order dated 18.02.2025, and resultantly, the plaint was rejected. As per Section 2(2) of CPC, 1908, ‘decree’ means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a

LNA,J C.R.P.No.275 of 2026

3

plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but

shall not include:-

a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal

from an order, or

b) any order of dismissal for default.

6. In the light of definition of Section 2 of CPC, an Order of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, amounts to final adjudication and deemed decree and as such, the same is appealable under Section 96 R/w. Order 41 of CPC. In Abdul Rashid Rather Vs. Ghulam Ahmad Ganai¹, wherein, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of J & K and Ladakh, held that an Order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a decree, and is appealable and revision does not lie. A similar view was taken in recent Judgment in Mehvish Choudhary Vs. J&K Bank and another,² and held that no revision lies against the Order of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and only appeal lies under Section 96 of CPC. Thus, in view of above legal position, an Order passed under Order VII Rule 11, rejecting the plaint is deemed to be decree and only appeal lies against the said Order under Section 96 of CPC and

revision does not lie.

1

AIR 2011 J&K 29 (30,31)

2

2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 133

LNA,J C.R.P.No.275 of 2026

4

7. In the present case, the respondent No.1 filed appeal against the Order dated 18.02.2025 in I.A.No.446 of 2023, rejecting the plaint, and the same is numbered as A.S.No.22 of 2025, and this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in entertaining the appeal filed by respondent No.1, therefore, the contention of t