The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in o.s. No. 11s oI 2023 on the file of Junior civil Judge at Alampur pending disposal of cRp otheruvise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and harm. Counsel for the Petitionerc: Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A. Veeraswamy The Court made the foltowing: ORDER '\ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.398 of 2O25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the order passed in IA No.532 of 2024 in OS No.115 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Alampur.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel for re spo ndents / plaintiffs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein in OS No.115 of 2023 and the petitioners herein had earlier filed IA No.532 of 2024 in OS No.115 of 2023 under \ Order 7 Rule 1l(a)(b)(c) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint filed by the plaintiff Nos.l to 5 / respondents herein on the ground that the plaint does.not disclose a valid cause of action and as such it can be safely rejected and the cause of action is vexatious, illusory and barred by limitation. Further to pursue a suit for Easement and permanent injunction, the respondents/plaintiffs must establish the existence of a legal right or interest which is being violated or threatened. Further there is no pima-facie case and the balance of convenlence are also not in favour of the 2 NNR,I respondents/plaintiffs and arso there is no irreparabf-r"":'""*K?i be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs, if the injunction order is not granted, as the main suit is filed on false and r.,exatious grounds and that there is no locas standito file a suit. 4- Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that respondents/plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 have fited the suit for easement right and injunction without declaration of title which is bad in law and the suit filed for bare injunction without declaration of title is illegal and the suit filed for not to interfere in the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit without having a valid legal right, title, possession and interest in the plaint schedule property is not maintainable in law. 5' It is also further contended that the respondents/plaintiffs did not paid any court fee as claimed'for easement right under section 3o of T.s.c.F. & s.v.Act and that the main ingredients under section 30 relating to court Fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the court; whichever is higher and further the respondents/ptaintiffs did not paid court fee for declaration. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the false suit by 'h cliti suppressing the actual facts in order to harass and extract NNR,I CRP No.398 of 2025 J unlawful gains from defendants Nos.1 to 3.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the learned trial Court did not consider the said above pleadings and dismissed the petitioner i.e., IA No.532 of 2024 in OS No.115 of 2023, dated 30.12.2024.

7. This Court having perused the entire material on record including the orders of the trial Court and the main affidavit and petition filed by the petitioner herein and the counter in the IA No.532 of 2024 and the averments of the plaint and the point which arose for consideration is whether the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and whether the petitioners has made out any grounds to reject the plaint under order VII Rule 11 (a) (bXc) of CPC.

8. Having heard counsel for the petitioners/defendants and counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

9. Admittedly, it is a suit which is filed against the defendants claiming the following reliefs for: (a) Granting perrnanent injunction restraining the defendant their heirs, agents, assignees, men or anybody on their behalf or claiming 4 NNR,J CRP No.398 of 2025 through them from obstructing plaintiffs' peacefut enjoyment ouer the "RRR" utay. (b) Granting costs of the suit. (c) Granting ana such other reliefs as fhis Hon'ble court d"eem,s fit and proper the circum,stances of the case and in th.e interest of justice"

10. And, it is the case. of the petitioners that before the trial court is on different grounds, one among being that there is no valid cause of action for filing the suit. In respect of the sarne, having perused the pleading, it is contended that the cause of action which arose for the suit where the lands of both the parities and people are situated and that the cause of action for the suit arose on 29.08.2023 at vattepally village, when the defendants had threatened the ptaintiffs, that if they did not withdraw the complaint against the l"t defendant made to the Tahsildar, vattepally and to the Endowment officer till then they will not allow them tg use RRR way, on the same day when the plaintiffs tried to convince the defendants through mediators namely sreenivasulu and Balaramadu, but the defendants denied thereon.

11. As the suit is for a permanent injunction the respondents/plaintiffs have notionally valued the said suit for Rs.lo,ooo/- and Fixed court Fees as Rs.7g6/- was paid.The main contentions of the petitionelq are that the respondent have liled ,r*,, suit for permanent injunction but did not paid the Court fee for CRP No.398 of 2025 5 seeking declaration and respondents did not seek any declaration in the plaint and as such the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief without obtaining any declaration relief and payment of Court Fee, for which learned counsel for the respondents herein contended that the respondents/plaintiffs never sought any declaration on the plaint, hence payment of court fee does not arise.

12. on perusal of the entire order passed by the trial court, which shows that the learned trial court having considered the entire provisions of order vII, Rule 11 (a)(b)(c) of c.p.c and the pleading have rightly carne to the conclusion that the plaint cannot be rejected, for the purpose of any error in valuation of the court fee, the same cannot be ground for the rejection of the plaint and also for the reason that an opportuniiy shall be given to the plaintiffs to explain why the court fee cannot be collected and further the trial Court held that the plaint under ord.er vll, Rule 1l (a)(b)(c) of c.P.c can be rejected only if any of the below grounds are satisfied.

13. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provisions of order VII, Rule 11 (a)(b)(c) of C.P.C is extracted as below: !a. - 6 NNtr,,/ CRP No.398 o! 2025 of plaint. "11. Rei The plaint shall be rejected in the foltouing cases- (a) uthere it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the retief claimed is underualued, and the plaintffi on being required bg the Court to correct the ualuation utithin a time to be fixed bg the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properlg ualued, but the ptaint is returned upon paper insulficientlg stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required bg the Court to supplg the requisite stamp- paper utithin a time to be fixed bA the Court, fails to do so;"

14. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that for the sake of and for deciding the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (aXbXc) of C.P.C, the Court has to see the averments made in the plaint and the relevant material filed along with plaint, which is a settled law.

15. Having perused the relevant paragraphs of "cause of action" and this Court did not choose to accept the contention of the petitioners/defendants Nos.l to 3 that the respondents/plaintiff have not made out the cause of action in the plaint and the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 to 3 failed to made out any ground to prove that the suit is barred by any law and also and no evidence or material have been placed before trial Court to show that how that suit is barred by law. Even the ground raised by the petitioners/defendarrtf,Nos.l to 3 that insufficient payment of -a NNR,J CRP No.398 of 2025 Court fee was paid by respondents/plaintiffs Nos.l to 5 also not 7 available to the petitioners/defendants Nos.l to 3 for the reason that, respondents/plaintiffs have only sought for suit for permanent injunction and not to disturb their possession over the suit schedule property, as such, the y notionally valued the suit at Rs.10,OO0/- and amount of fixed Court fees as Rs.786/- was paid.

16. Further on the ground that raised by the petitioners that the that no suit is maintainable . without seeking any relief of declaration also cannot be accepted for rejection of plaint, accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds raised by the petitioneri herein are not legally available and cannot be accepted to reject the of plaint.

17. For the said reasons, I hold this point accordingly in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners/defendants. In the result C.R.P. deserved to be and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, s*hall s_B!d closed. ,ffRUE COPY" sD/- Ecnon OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge at Alampur' 2. one cc to sriVenkat Reddy Kodumury, Advocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to SriA- Veeraswamy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies \rlrlDqr ,MMT HIGH COURT DATED: 26/0812025 \ ORDER CRP.No.398 of 2025 STA ( 3 oBJAN?tzt r,) >. * 't ,n=n,3z?..i"' '::'Li-"2 DISMISSING THE CRP 6tm+r --sy0r,ler&r