Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18044

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ
Gaddam Babaiah – Appellant
Versus
Kadaveru Surendra Mohan – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT No.138 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Radhakrishna, Rajesh Maddy
For the Respondents: Arun Kumar Agarwal, R.K. Chitta

An application for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely based on the averments in the plaint. The court cannot consider the defendant's evidence or written statement to determine issues of limitation or the validity of agency, which are triable questions of fact.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Principles for exercising power - Power to reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic measure to terminate civil action at threshold. Factors to be considered are limited to averments in the plaint and documents filed therewith, assuming them to be true. Stand of defendants in written statement or application for rejection is entirely irrelevant at this stage. (Paras 19, 21, 33, 41)

(B) Limitation Act - Article 58 and 113 - Right to sue - Threshold stage - Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which often requires evidence. Where date of knowledge is specifically pleaded as basis for cause of action, plaint cannot be rejected summarily. (Paras 24, 35, 68)

(C) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 201 and 202 - Termination of agency - Power of Attorney - Agency generally terminates upon death of principal, unless coupled with interest. Whether a power of attorney constitutes an irrevocable agency coupled with interest is a triable issue. (Paras 57, 60, 65)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and to declare certain sale deeds executed by an agent as null and void, alleging that the authority under the relevant Power of Attorney had terminated upon the death of the principals. One of the defendants filed an application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the suit disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the trial judge failed to follow the settled legal position that an application for rejection of a plaint must be decided purely on the averments of the plaint. The allegations regarding the termination of the agency upon the death of the principals and subsequent lack of authority, coupled with the claim of continuous possession, raise triable issues that cannot be determined in a summary proceeding under Order 7 Rule 11.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint at the threshold based on contentions raised by the defendant regarding limitation and the validity of the power of attorney, without holding a full trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection of a plaint is a summary remedy that can only be exercised when the plaint, on its face, discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. Since the plaintiffs pleaded specific dates of cause of action and continuous possession, and since the validity of agency termination involves factual adjudication, the matter requires a trial.

Result: Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Trial court directed to proceed with the suit.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and subject matter of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. legal precedents regarding order 7 rule 11 cpc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's scope of inquiry under order 7 rule 11 (plaint must be read as a whole). (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
4. application of law to facts: cause of action and limitation issues. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
5. termination of agency and validity of gpas upon death of principals. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
6. determination of limitation period as a mixed question of fact and law. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90)
7. final order: setting aside rejection of plaint and expediting trial. (Para 91 , 92 , 93 , 94)

JUDGEMENT

Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Arun Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel representing Sri R.K.Chitta 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.785 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.40/D.40’)

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1085 of 2017 against the 1st respondent and others for declaration of title, 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’) and to declare the sale deeds mentioned in Annexure-1 executed by D.1 in favour of D.2 to D.32 in the capacity of the GPA holder bearing document No.593 of 1989 dated 02.10.1989 as illegal. During pendency of the said suit, 1st respondent / Defendant No.40 had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.785 of 2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of 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, the suit is not barred by limitation and it was filed well within the limittaion. 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 Arun Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel representing Sri R. K. Chitta, learned counsel for 1st respondent/defendant No.40 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 (d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18044

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADK. Lakshman, B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJGaddam Babaiah – AppellantVersusKadaveru Surendra Mohan – RespondentAPPEAL SUIT No.138 OF 2026

An application for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely based on the averments in the plaint. The court cannot consider the defendant's evidence or written statement to determine issues of limitation or the validity of agency, which are triable questions of fact.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ
Gaddam Babaiah – Appellant
Versus
Kadaveru Surendra Mohan – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT No.138 OF 2026