Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 20455
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Gurrampally @ Teegapuram Anjaiah – Appellant
Versus
Gurrampally @ Teegapuram Jangaiah – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.785 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kasoju Yadagiri
For the Respondents: A. Venkata Swamy Yadav
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds of limitation or lack of cause of action is not permissible when such issues are mixed questions of fact and law that require a full-fledged trial based on evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Limitation and cause of action are mixed questions of fact and law which require a full-fledged trial for adjudication - In the absence of a clear lack of cause of action or unambiguous bar by limitation on the face of the plaint, summary rejection is not permissible. (Paras 26, 30, 31)
(B) Limitation - Suit for recovery of possession based on title - Limitation period for a suit based on title is 12 years under Article 65 - Knowledge of dispossession or adverse entries in revenue records is a factual issue requiring evidence, especially when plaintiffs reside elsewhere. (Paras 6, 8, 30)
(C) Civil Revision - Extraordinary jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution - Extraordinary power is not intended to act as a substitute for trial in disputed factual matters where evidence is at an advanced stage. (Paras 11, 15, 31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners-defendants sought the rejection of a plaint in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, alleging that the suit was barred by the law of limitation and that the plaintiffs did not disclose a sufficient cause of action, particularly regarding the date of dispossession, given that the sale deeds in question dated back to 1980 and 2001. The trial court dismissed the petition, prompting this revision.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plea of limitation and the determination of the date of dispossession are mixed questions of fact and law. The court maintained that evidence had already been partially recorded, and the issues regarding maintainability were already set for trial.
Issues: Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on grounds of limitation or lack of cause of action prior to the completion of trial.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected summarily when the determination of limitation and cause of action significantly depends on factual findings that are currently the subject of ongoing evidence proceedings in the trial court.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the primary dispute regarding title declaration and limitation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiffs' assertions regarding title-based recovery and nature of limitation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioners' grounds for revision regarding limitation and disclosure of cause of action. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. petitioners' reliance on case law regarding the necessity of pleading dispossession. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. respondents' counter-arguments on the nature of limitation as a mixed question of fact. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. court's reasoning on the prematurity of summary rejection for limitation issues. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. final order dismissing the revision petition. (Para 32) |
ORDER:
Heard Sri Kasoju Yadagiri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Venkata Swamy Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire record.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order passed by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (‘trial Court’) in I.A.No.679 of 2024 in O.S.No.472 of 2018 dated 18.10.2024, wherein a petition filed by the petitioners herein/defendant Nos.1 to 16, 21 to 45, under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC has been dismissed rejecting the plea for rejection of plaint.
Case of the petitioners:
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration of title, recovery possession and cancellation of registered sale deed document bearing No.875 of 1980 dated 20.11.1980 and registered sale deed bearing document No.1569 of 2001 dated 06.04.2001. The case of the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 16 and 21 to 45 is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not have cause of action to file their suit and that the suit is barred by law. Referring to the facts of the case, it is pleaded that originally Gurrampally @ Teegapuram Narayana, who is the father of respondent Nos.1 and 2, sold the property through a registered sale deed bearing document No.875 of 1980, dated 20.11.1980, in favour of Baikan Sattaiah (D12/R13) in Survey No.121 admeasuring Ac.4-11 guntas situated at Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The father of respondent Nos.1 and 2 delivered possession of the property to Baikan Sattaiah on the date of execution of the registered sale deed i.e. 20.11.1980. On an application made by Baikan Sattaiah, the names of Baikan Sattaiah and his brother were recorded as pattaadar and possessor, and accordingly, pattaadar passbooks and title deeds have been issued. The petitioners pleaded that the plaint pleadings do not disclose when respondent Nos.1 and 2 were dispossessed from the suit schedule property.
4. Further, it is pleaded that the registered sale deed bearing document No.1569 of 2001 dated 06.04.2001 was marked as Ex.A-15 and it is clearly mentioned that said document was registered on 20.11.1980. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had knowledge about the document in the year 1980, but the suit was filed in the year 2018. Therefore, pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. On said both counts, the petitioners herein sought rejection of plaint.
Case of respondent Nos.1 and 2:-
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed the petition by filing counter stating that the evidence of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has already been recorded and the matter is at the stage of recording of defendants’ evidence and at that juncture deliberately to protract the proceedings the present petition has been filed. It is pleaded that for a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the contents of the pleadings of the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiffs have to be taken into consideration, but not the pleadings of the defendants or their documents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 pleaded that on the strength of misleading statements, the petitioners are claiming that there is no prima facie case and that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and theref
