ORDER:

Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Karra Yella Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred assailing the order dated 25.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jangaon, in I.A.No.291 of 2022 in O.S.No.65 of 2022, whereby the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.3 to 6 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint came to be dismissed.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

a) The respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit vide O.S.No.65 of 2022 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jangaon, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27.02.2019 in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff sought a direction to the petitioners/defendants to execute a registered sale deed in his favour or in favour of his nominee to the extent of his alleged share in the schedule property covered by the agreement. In the alternative, the plaintiff sought refund of the advance sale consideration of Rs.75,00,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of sale agreement till realization.

b) The petitioners/defendant Nos.3 to 6 filed written statement iner-alia disputing the averments made in the plaint and subsequently, filed an application vide I.A.No.291 of 2022 in O.S.No.65 of 2022, seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the following grounds:

i. that the suit was grossly undervalued and proper court fees was not paid on the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,08,00,000/-;

ii. that the plaint does not disclose a valid or subsisting cause of action; and

iii. that the original agreement of sale dated 27.02.2019 had not been filed along with the plaint.

c) The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the rival pleadings and submissions, dismissed the said application by holding that the plaint discloses a cause of action and that the objections raised by the petitioners/defendant Nos.3 to 6 do not fall within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners/defendants no.3 to 6

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit, as framed, is manifestly undervalued, inasmuch as the agreement of sale dated 27.02.2019 reflects a total sale consideration of Rs.2,08,00,000/- and therefore, the respondent no.1 was bound to pay court fee on the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,08,00,000/- as mandated under Section 39(a) of the Telangana Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. According to the petitioners, payment of Court fee only on the alleged half share of respondent No.1 amounting to Rs.1,04,00,000/- is impermissible in a suit for specific performance and such valuation cannot be sustained in law. Thus, it is contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that when the suit is undervalued, the same is liable to be rejected at the threshold.

5. It is further submitted that the plaint does not disclose any real or enforceable cause of action and the respondent No.1 had not clearly pleaded the necessary facts which constitute a valid cause of action and that the pleadings are vague, illusory and bereft of the foundational facts. It is further submitted that the suit has been filed on vexatious, untenable pleadings and illusory cause of action.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the original agreement of sale dated 27.02.2019 was not filed along with the plaint and that the very basis of the suit was thus, absent before the Court at the time of institution of proceedings.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Chari