The High Court · 2026

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M SURENDER RAO, SR.COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI The Court made the following: OROER HICH COURT ['OR THE STATE oF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REvISION PETI'IION No.9l6 OF 2026 Date:01.05.2026 IJetwccn: ltanresh Caiku,ad. . . ..Rcvrsion Petitioner/Def'endant AND [)r.Paclmashri Drcanr Project Pvt I.rd. . . ..Respondent/Plaintill ORDER: (l'er llon bte .\ri .lu.stic'c K. Itk.shmunt Ileard Sri ('h. Janardhan Itcddl . lcarned counsel tbr thc petitioner: Sri M.Sirrender Rao, lcarned Senior Counsel represcnting Sri Vija_v B. Paropakari, learned counsel lbr the respondent.

2. This civil revision peririon is filed under Article 227 of the Clonstitution ol India assailing the order dared 13.02.2026 passed in 1A No.505.2025 in O.S.No.2l5 <tt'2024 by rhe learned I Additional [)istricr & Sessions Judgc-c um-Add itiona I I.'amily Courr Judge, Mcdchal-Malkajgiri Disrrict,at Kushaiguda ( fbr shorr,,trial Court' ). 2

3. The respondenVplaintill has filed a suit vide O S No'215 ol 2024 against the petitioner/delendant lor defamation' damages ol Rs. 1.00 crore and also for perpetual injunction'

4. During pendency ol the said suit' the petitroner hereirVdefendant has filed I'A No'505 of 2025 in O'S'No 2l5 of 2024 under Order VII Rule I 1(a) ot'CPC to rejcct thc plaint contending that there is no cause ol action in the ptaint' the notice dated 28'08'2024 was not addressed to the respondenti pla intiff and it was addressed to Smt. Shirely Rush Ernest W/o' Moses Avinash Emest through his counsel. Therefore there is no cause of action at all and the plaint has to be rejected. The respondent/plaintifl has filed counter opposing the said application contending that the cause ol action is a mixed question of law and fact' lt is triable' On the said ground' the plaint cannot be rejected. Moreover, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded with regard to cause ol action'

5. Vide order dated l3'02'2026' the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.505 ol 2025 holding that the petitioner herein failed to estabtish any ground to rciect thc plaint' Challenging the said order' the petitioner/defendant has tllcd the present civiI revision petition' .t

6. fhis Courr heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearine fbr the respondent at length. This Court also gave thoirghtlLrl considcration of their submissions

7. As discussed sr.rpra, I.A.No.505 ol 2025 is filed under Order Vll Rulc I l(a1 oi CPC sceking to rejecr the plaint. Theretbre the albresaid provision is relevant and it is extracted hereunder: " 1 l. Rejection of plaint. 'l-hc plarttt .shall fu reietted in tlrc follot'in,q cases. (a) wlrcrt it dor:: not disclo.st u Luu.\e ol o( lion: (b) rr)rtL, rhe t,:lit/ c'lutntr:l i.s unleryaluetl. und tht pluintil/ or baing rcquircd hy, tha ( ourt to L.orre(.t thc roluutitttt y ithitt u tine to hc li.rctl hy the ('ourt. liils to do (c) tt itL'rt, tttc rclrcl c'luinrLl i.s pntltLrl.t yultt'il. bul tht ltluint i: rtturneLl uf)n pupcr insulJicicntly' stumpetl, und rha pluinti/i'. on being required hy the ('ourt to supply thc requi';itr: .ttutnp-pupcr u'ithin u time to be Jixed bl the Court. /ai ls to tlo so, (rl) v,here the suit oppears.from the statement in the plant to lte horrc,l by ony law, (r) uhrrc tr i: rtot lil,'tl in duplttutt,: (f1 wherr: rhc platntiff.fail: to compll v,ith the provisions rtl rult 9 ' lhclelore plaint can be rejected on the afbresaid grounds Btrt, thc Ilon'blc ,\pcx Courl has laid dor.r,n certain paramcters to rcject thc plaint in rerms of Order VII Rule I I ol CpC in a I 4 Dahiben Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusalir and lndian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v' Sri Bala2'

8. In Dahibenr, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of Order - VII, Rute - I I ol CPC and held as under: "23.Z.The remedy under Order 7 Rule I I "vherein is an independent and special remedy. court is elnpowered to sutntnarily disnriss a suit at the threshold. rvithotrt procccding to record evidence, and conductlng a trial' on the basis ol- the evidencc adduced. il it is satisfied that the action should be terrninated on any of thc grounds contained in this Provision.

23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule I l(a) is that ii in a suit. no causc ol action is disclosed. or thc suit is barrcd b1'lirnitation under Rute ll(d). the court would not pcrnlit the plaintifl to unnecessarily protract the proccedings in the suit. In such a case. it riould be necessary to put an end to the shatn litigation, so that further judicial time is not u'asted.

23.4 . ln Azlrur Gandhi119S6 SrPP Hussain v. Rojiv SCC 315. Follorved '2020 7 scc 366 t 2oz5 nsc q2 ) in Munvendrasinhj i Ranj its inhl i Jodelo v l"ijat kunverbu. 1998 .\CC OnLine ( 1993) 2 Gl ll 82! this Court held Gu.j ),\l that thc rr hole purposc of cont'errncnt ol powcrs under this provision is to ensure that a litigation u hlclr is rneaningless. and bound t-o prove abortir c. should rrot be pcrrnitted to \\'aste judicial tirnc of thc court. in the lollowing words :(SCC p. 321, para 12) I 2. 'l'he u hole purpose ol r'()nli'n Cnt ()l' suClt powcrs is ttl enSurc that a litigation rvhich is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be perniitred to occupy the time ol the court, and cxcrcisc rhe mind of the respondent. 'l he srvord of Damocles need not be kept hangine over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinrry cii il litigation, the court readily cxerciscs the power to rcject a plaint, il it does not disclose any cause olaction." 2-1.5. 'l'hc power conf-crred on the cou( to tcrrnirratc a cir il action is. howevcr. a draslic onc. and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule I I arc required to be strictly adhered to." 6 9 In Indian Evangelical [,utheran Church Trust Association2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: " Legal Framework Order VII Rule I I of the Code:

6. Since the issue in this appeal pertains to the correctness or otherwise of the impugned orders refusing rejection of the plaint, at this stage. we deem it necessary to reler to Order VII Rule I I of the Codc which dcals u'ith thc grounds fbr re.jection ola plaint: "l l. Rejection of plaint:- 'l'he plaint shall be rejected in the Following cases- (a) where it does not disclose a cause oIactiorr: (b) where the rclief clairned is undervalued. and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, lails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valucd, but the plaint is writtcn upon paper insulficiently stamped. and the plair)liff, on bcing requircd by lhe Courl to suppl) the requisite starnp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Coun, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appcars lrom the statement in the plainl to be barred br any lau: (e) where it is not filed in duplicate: (l) where the plaintifl' lhils to cornply' uith the provision of rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the conection of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be cxtcrrded unless tlte Court, lor reasons to be rccordcd, is 1 \alr\ljc(l that thc plailltill $as prerenrcd by any (a(r.\' , 1 irrr u\.(lrtio al rratrrre lbr c,.rrrc:cting tl-e ' ,rlu.rl,,rrr ,,r .rrpplr irrg tlr( r(qltisitL. \ttrnp-paper. rls the casc rnlr bc, rvilhrn the tintc fixed by thc Court rnd thar relusal to exrend such time would .ar\e !rTav(j illtrstice to the plaintiff' (r.I In the instant casc. an application was filed urldcr C)rder VII llulc I l(d) ol thc Code where the grountl ol' rc_iection ol thc plaint \\,as that the suit appcar\ lionr thc srilrctncnt in thc plaint to be barred b1, an\ la\\. In this rcqard. our attention was drawn to \ arious dccisions ol rllis Court with regard to rcjection ol'plairrt Lrndcr Order VII Rulc ll of the Code rvhich are as lir llorr r: (i) ln T. .4rivandondam ys. T.V. Sotyapat, (1977) 4 S('C 467. this Court w,hilc exarnining the aloresaid provision has held that the trial cou( must rcrnerrrbcr that rl on a mcaninglil and not a lormal reirclirrc ol thc plaint it is rlanilcstly vexatious and rneritlcss in thr, se nse of not disclosing a clear right to suc. it should cxercise thc power under Order VII ltulc ll ol thc Codc taking care to see that the qround rnentioncd thercin is 1'ultllled. If clever drafiine has created the illusion of a cause ol action. ir has ro be nipped in the bud at the first hearint by cxarnining the partv searchingly under 8 Order X ol the Codc. as observed bv Krishna lver. .t. (ii) The object ol the said provision was laid down by this Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistont Charity Commisioner, (2004) -l IJ7. Similarly, in Popat and Kotecho Properly vs. SCC State Bank oJ Indio Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, this Court has culled out the legal ambit of Order VII Rule I I of the Code. (iii) It is trite lar.v that not any particular plca has to be considered. but the rvhole plaint has to be read. As rvas observed by this Court in Roop Lal Salhi t's. Nachhottar Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487, onlv a par( of thc plaint cannot be rejectcd and if no caLrsc of'action is discloscd. thc plaint as a wholc lnust be re.iected. Similarly, in Raptakos Brell & Co. Lld. vs. Ganesh Prope y, (1998) 7 SCC /8r', it rvas observed that the avennents in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whcther clause (d) of Rule I I Order VII ol the Code is applicable. (iv) [t was further held with reference to Order VII Rulc ll of the Code in Saleem Bhai vs. Slate of Maharashtra, (2003) I SCC 557 that the relevant lacts which need to bc looked into fbr deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. 'Ihe trial court can exercise the power at any stagc of the suit i.e. belore registcring the plaint or alter issuing summons to the defendant at any time belore the conclusion oi the trial. For the purposes 9 ()f dcciding an application Lrnder clauses (a) and (d) of ()rdcr \/ll t{ule I I ol-the Code. the avermenrs in tlre plain: are gcnltanc: thc pleas taken by the delcndant in the rr,ritten stalcment rvould be wholly irreler anr at that stage. (\ ) ln R.K. Roju vs. [;.S.Ru.yutlu. (20t6) l4 SCC 275. l1 \\as rcitcrittcd that tltc ()nl\ restriction is that the 1r it considcrarion ol tlrc application lbr rc.jcction should not be on thc basrs o[- the allcgatrons rnadc by the dcle ndanl in his r.r ritten statement or on the basis of, thc allcgrrtions in rhe application fbr rejection of the plaint. I hc coLrrl has to consider only the plaint as a \'lrole. arrd in casc thc entirc plaint comes under the situarions covered by Order VII Rules I l(a) to (Q o['thc (]ode. rhe sarne Itas to bc rcjected. lrt Kuldeep .Singh Ptthunia vs. Bikram Singh Jaryol, (20I 7) .t SCC Jr'.t. rhis Courl observed rhat thc courl ean onlr sec $hetlrcr the plaint, or rather the plearlines ol rhe plaintill. constrtute a cause of action. I)lcadings in thc scnsc wherc. even aller the stagc ol written sratetncnt. il there is a replication tllcd. irr a givcn situation the sanre also can be looked into to scc whether there is any admission on the fart ol the plaintill. In other words, under Ordcr Vll [{u1,.. I l. lhe court has to take a decision loukins :rt the plcadings ol thc plainrilf onlv and not on thc rebuttal rnade by rhe delendant or any other nliltcnali prctdLrccd hr the dcltndunt. l0 (vii) ln an application undcr Order VII Rule ll ol the Code, a plaint cannot be rejected in part. This principlc is well established and has been continuously lollorvcd since the 1936 decision in Maqsud Ahmad vs. Mathra Datl & Co. AIR 1936 Lah l02l ['his principle is also explained in another decision of this Court in Sejal Glass Lttl. vs. Navilott Merchonts Privale Lld,, (2018) I I SCC 780 rvhich *'as gain lollowed in Modhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis Bank Lld., (2019) 7 SCC 158. (v iii) ln Biswanath Banik vs. Sulanga Bose, (2022) 7 SCC 7-l l. this Court discussed the issue whether the suit can bc said to be barred by limitation or not. and observcd that at this stage. what is required to be considercd is the averments in thc plaint. Onl;-- in a case ',r,herc on the facc olit. it is seen that thc suit is barred b1 limitation. thcn and then only a plaint can be reje cted undcr Order Vll Rulc I l(d) ol the Code on the ground ol limitation. At this stage what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. For the aforesaid purpose, the Court has to consider and read the averments in the plaint as a whole."

10. In the light ol the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgrnents, coming to the facts ol- this case, the respondenti pla int ill has specifically contended in the plaint that the cause of actiotr has arisen on 28,08.2024, when the petitioner herein got issued notice to Smt. Shircly Rush I:rnest W/o. Moses Avinash Ernest through his counsel, on 06.09 1014. ri hcn plainrill' got issued legal notice to the delendant and on l r.09.201.1 when the def-endant received the said legal notice. Thus. according to thc respondent/plaintiff, cause of action arose lbr filing ol the suit only on thc petitioner issuing the aforesaid legal notice dated 28.08.2024 to Smt. Shirely Rush Emest W/o. Moses Avinash Ernesr through his counsel. Therefore, the respondcntrplaintil'l'has flled the albresaid suit for delamation and also lor damages. I'hus, Lhc responden [r,plain tilf has specifically pleaded u ilh regard t() the causc ol'action I l. l'he contenlion ot' thc learned counsel for the petitioner/de lendan t is that thcre is no cause olaction, the said notice dated 28.08.2024 rs not addressed ro rhe respondent/plaintiff and it was addressed to Smt. Shirc,ly Rush Ernest W/o. Moses Avinash Ernest througl.r his counsel. I he plaintilf company has passed Board Resolution only orr 01 .09.2024 'l'herefore. the plaint has to be I I rejected

12. It is settled principle ol law that while considering an application llled under Ordcr Vll Rule ll olCpC. the Court has to t2 consider the contents o{'the plaint and also the documents filed along with the plaint. Other aspects cannot be considered. Thus, cause of action is a mixed question ol law and fact. In lact, it is bundle ol facts. It will be considered only afrcr full-fledged trial in the suit

13. On consideration of the said aspects and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahibcn (supra) and other judgments, the learned trial Court dismissed the afbresaid application fited by the petitioner. The impugned order is reasoned and well lorrncd order. The petitioner herein/defendant failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly disrrissed. No order as to costs Consequcntly, miscellancous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District and sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family court Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda. 2. One CC to Sri Ch Janardhan Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Vijay B Paropakari, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK/GNK s \ HIGH COURT DATED: 0110512026 I t ORDER CRP.No.916 ot2026 t iii: i) -.", 0 | r{AY 2026 + .}1/ 'J i_) ,1. t DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS I q t/-