HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.916 OF 2026 Date: 01.05.2026 Between:

Ramesh Gaikwad.

….Revision Petitioner/Defendant AND Dr.Padmashri Dream Project Pvt. Ltd.

….Respondent/Plaintiff ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.505.2025 in O.S.No.215 of 2024 by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Court Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,at Kushaiguda (for short, ‘trial Court’).

3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit vide O.S.No.215 of 2024 against the petitioner/defendant for defamation, damages of Rs.1.00 crore and also for perpetual injunction.

4. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner herein/defendant has filed I.A.No.505 of 2025 in O.S.No.215 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC to reject the plaint contending that there is no cause of action in the plaint, the notice dated 28.08.2024 was not addressed to the respondent/plaintiff and it was addressed to Smt. Shirely Rush Ernest W/o. Moses Avinash Ernest through his counsel. Therefore there is no cause of action at all and the plaint has to be rejected. The respondent/plaintiff has filed counter opposing the said application contending that the cause of action is a mixed question of law and fact. It is triable. On the said ground, the plaint cannot be rejected. Moreover, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded with regard to cause of action.

5. Vide order dated 13.02.2026, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.505 of 2025 holding that the petitioner herein failed to establish any ground to reject the plaint. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present civil revision petition.

6. This Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent at length. This Court also gave thoughtful consideration of their submissions.

7. As discussed supra, I.A.No.505 of 2025 is filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC seeking to reject the plaint. Therefore the aforesaid provision is relevant and it is extracted hereunder:

“11. Rejection of plaint.

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:”

Therefore plaint can be rejected on the aforesaid grounds.

But, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to reject the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, 12020 7 SCC 366 and Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri Bala, 2025 INSC 42

8. In Dahiben¹, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC and held as under:

“23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

23.3. The underlying object of O