The Apex Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. I 569 of 2025 ORDER: In compliance with the order dated 02.A5.2025,learned counsel for petitioners has filed a memo vide USR.No.5 l55g dated 09.06.2025 along with postal acknowledgment card in respect of leamed counsel appearing for the respondents herein, in the trial Court in O.S.No.754 of 2024 and returned postal covers with an endorsement .addressee left, in respect of the respondents. As the notice is served on the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is deemed that the respondents are served. 2 Despite service of notice on the respondents, there is no representation for the respondents.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. This Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated

27.03.2025 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil 2 KL, J C.R P.No.ls69 oI 2025 : iS'' Judge, Karimnagar, in I.A.No'351 of 2024 in O'S'No'754 of

5. ' Respondents herein have filed suit vide O S'No'754 of 2024 against petitioners/defendants seeking perpetual injunction. During pendency of the said suit, petitioners have filed l.A. vlde I.A.No.35l of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the following grounds 1) respondents/plaintiffs filed the said suit basing on the unregistered lease deed, and 2) there is no cause of action' Respondents filed counter opposing the said I'A' contending that the aforesaid two grounds are triable issues and the cause of action is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore' on the said ground, plaint cannot be rejected' Thereupon, vlde order under revision dated2':..03.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed the said I.A. holding that there is a cause of action and it is a mixed question of law and facts and the admissibility of the documents can be considered at the stage of trial. Challenging the said order, petitioners filed the present Civil Rev ision Petition. ,/./ ,,/ // ,.,, ,/,. 3 KL, J C.R.P No 1569 of2025

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court failed to consider the contentions raised bv the petitioners. In the plaint, there is no averment with regard to the cause of action and lease deed is an unregistered document. The trial Courl did not consider the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the order under revision dated 27 .03.2025 is contrary to the record.

1. As discussed supra, O.S.No.l54 of 2024 is filed for perpetual injunction. In paragraph No.5 of the plaint, respondents/plaintiffs have specihcally pleaded with regard to the agreement dated 30.03.2024 entered by the plaintiffs and

15.04.2024 is the date on which the plaintiffs paid advance amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and 01.08.2024 is the date of commencement of lease and from 15.09.2024, the petitioners/defendants continuously trespassed into the suit schedule property. Further, again on 01.10.2024, the defendants interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiffs have specificapr Oleaded about the said dates and the cause of 4 KL, J C.R.P.No.1569 ot 2o2s action in the plaint. The plaintiffs have also specifically pleaded about the cause of action in paragraph No.S of the plaint. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners/defendants that there is no cause ofaction for filing the above said suit by the respondentsiplaintiffs is untenable. The trial Court has considered the said aspects and held that the plaintiffs have plcaded the cause ofaction specifically.

8. With regard to the second contention of the petitioners that the respondents filed the above said suit basing on the unregistered lease deed, it is rightly held by the trial Court that the said aspect can be considered at the time of trial and admissibility of the documents will be looked into at the stage of trial. On the said ground, the plaint cannot be rejected

9. The Apex Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)r categorically held that the Court while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has to consider the contents of the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint. ' lzozoy I scc :oo t \ /.,

10. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit 5 KL, J c.R.P.No 1569 0f2025 basing on the documents including original lease deed dated

30.03.2024, advance receipt dated 15.04.2024 etc. On consideration of the said aspects, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. filed by the petitioners. There is no eror much less jurisdictional error in the order under revision. The petitioners failed to make out any case to interfere with the order under revrslon Therefbre, this Civil Revision Petition is liabte to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. However, liberty IS granted to the petitioners to take the aforesaid contentions before the trial Court and it is 1br the trial Court to consider the same. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shalt stand closed Sd/. B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I To,

1. 2. 3. GR/PS The lAdditional Junior Civil Judge Karimnagar Diski -'-'" 9r" 99 to SRr. G STNDHU na"o"rt topriCi Two CD Cooies 'lp ECTION OFFICER \ c !) . tU. Slrt/ ( a) 2I JUt 2$25 t o -,,, HIGH COURT DATED: 1 310612025 ORDER CRP.No.1569 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION a6 g b