JUDGEMENT

Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.2 to 45 are not necessary parties. The said fact is also mentioned in the cause title of the appeal itself.

3. The present Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2018 in O.S.No.1085 of 2017 by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

(for sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ and the 1st respondent as ‘Defendant No.39/D.39’)

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1085 of 2017 against the 1st respondent and others for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 33 properties (for short, ‘the suit schedule property’). During pendency of the said suit, 1st respondent / Defendant No.39 had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.9 of 2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in the said suit, to reject the plaint against D.39 and in respect of Item No.13 of suit schedule property on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause action and it is barred by limitation.

5. The plaintiffs filed counter in the said interlocutory application contending that they pleaded cause of action specifically and the suit is not barred by limitation. They have stated so in the plaint itself. However, both the cause of action and limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the trial Court has to consider the same on conclusion of full – fledged trial. The same cannot be considered in a petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

6. Vide impugned order, learned trial Court allowed the said interlocutory application and rejected the plaint holding that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and it is barred by limitation.

7. Challenging the said order, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal.

8. We have heard Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent/defendant No.39 extensively.

9. In support of their case, learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs have placed reliance on the principle laid down in the following judgments:-

10. Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi¹(2001) 8 SCC 233, Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi²1986 Supp.SCC 315, Sejal Glass Limited vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited³(2018) 11 SCC 780, N.Shankara Reddy vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao⁴2018 (1) ALD 220 (DB), C.Mohammad Yunus vs. Syed Unnissa⁵AIR 1961 SC 808, Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs.⁶AIR 2008 SC 2033, Central Bank of India vs. Prabha Jain⁷(2025) 4 SCC 38, Kum. Geetha vs. Nanjundaswamy⁸AIR Online 2023 SC 862, Narayani Amma vs. Bhaskaran Pillai⁹AIR 1969 Kerala 214, Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai, Byits Secretary. Vs. S.M.Krishnan¹⁰(1989) 4 SCC 603, Daliben Vaijibhai vs. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai¹¹(2024) SCC OnLine SC 4105, Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA)¹²AIR 2020 SC 3310. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal¹³(1977) 4 SCC 467, Shakti Bhog Food Industries v. Central Bank of India¹⁴(2020) 17 SCC 260, P.Kumara Kurubaram vs. P.Narayanan¹⁵(2025) SCC Online SC 975, Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success¹⁶(2004) 9 SCC 512, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.¹⁷(2007) 5 SCC 614, ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal¹⁸(1998) 2 SCC 70, Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal¹⁹(2017) 13 SCC 174, Maqsud Ahmad vs. Mathra Datt and Company²⁰AIR 1936 Lahore 1021.

11. In support of his case, learned counsel for the 1st respondent – Defendant No.39 placed reliance on the principle laid down by Apex Court in Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited²¹(2022) 10 SCC 1, and Ramisetty Venkatanna vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb²