The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

2. Panchayth Secretary, Peddapur village, Julapalli mandal of Peddapalli ...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT No.5 ,:i-I=E'=z lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings o.s.N. 168 of 2024 on the file of the Junior civil Judge- cum-Judicial lr/lagistrate of First Class at Sulthanabad, dated 21 .03.2025 ' pending disposal of the present CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AMBALA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents; The Court made the following: ORDER ' *{f'r :..,. ' 'i"' -- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN I CIVIL REVISTON PETIT ON No.2O36 of 2025, ORDER: Heard Sri Ambala Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners

2. The 1"t respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No. 16g of 2024 against the petitioners herein and 2nd respondent seeking perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the said injunction suit, the petitioners herein frled I.A.No. 1O9 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint contending as follows: i) that the 1"t respondent/plaintiff filed the suit claiming the suit land on the basis of bogus house site proceedings wherein there is no mention about the boundaries, plot number and also survey number. There is no date mentioned in the said proceedings. The plaintiff has prepared the bogus house site documents. The plaint is also liable to be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as per OrderlRule9CPC. I(L,J C. R.P.No.2036 of 2025 2 ii) that the piaintiff is illegally trying to construct the compound wall obstructing the defendants 2 to 4 including the villagers by closing the pathway' iii) that on the basis of an application given to the District Collector, the Panchayat Secretary/D5 had stopped the illega-l construction of wall by the plaintiff' iv) that the plaintiff filed the suit without there being any cause of action and the cause of action mentioncd in the plaint is created for the purpose of the suit. 3. Opposing the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the 1"t respondent herein filed counter contending as follows: i) that the suit is not for declaration of title and recovery of possession or suit for partition, as such, joining sibiings of 1"t respondent is not necessary' ii) That the petitioners herein/defendants in order to grab the suit land, claiming that the subject property is a path way under Section 17 of the Easement Act, 1882, which is not binding on the piaintiff. iii) On 26.11.2024, the petitioners/defendants came to the schedule land and damaged the subject i I I I I I t I I I I I I i I I i I i ! KL,J C.R.P-No.2036 of 2025 3 compound wall. A complaint was also lodged with SHO, PS, Julapalli and same was registered as Crime No.l9Il2O24. The cause of action is chain of events, which will be proved at the time of trial. 4. Vide order dated 21.03.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that the said contentions raised by the petitioner are triable issues and on the said ground, plaint cannot be rejected. The petitioners have to face trial and all the contentions raised in the said application, can be raised before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed present revision petition contending that the learned trial Court did not consider the contentions raised by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1O9 of 2025. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous

5. As discussed supra, the petitioners hled I.A.No. 109 of 2025 rn O.S.No.168 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the file of learned Junior Civil KL,J C.R.P.No.2036 of 2025 :.i4.l 4 Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sulthanabad, to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint lacks cause of action. The cause of action is a mixed question of law anci facts. It is bundle of facts.

6. A perusal of the plaint filed by the l't respondent would reveal that plaintiff specifically pleaded with regard to cause of action i.e.. on 2l .12.2024, the date on whicl-r the defendalts came to the suit schedule property rvith antisocial elements and tried to disturb the possession of the petitioners ove!' the suit schedule property. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned tria-l court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioners. The petitioner on one hand contended that the plaintiff invented the causc of action and filed the suit and on the contrary, contended that there is no cause of action. Thus, the said contentions of the petitioner are self contradictory. Thus, the irnpugned order is reasoned order and well founded. The petitioners herein failed to w I I I i KL,J C.R.P.No.2036 of 2025 5 make out any case warra_nting interference by this Court by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the light of above discussion, 'this revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all the grounds raised herein before the trial Court and it is for the tria-l Court to consider the same. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.PRATHIMA E UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER '1 . The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sulthanabad

2. One CC to SRI AIVJBALA RAJU Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies SS/ABK YY l ''(, ..\, ,. '\ 1E P5E : t rlr-,\1 HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER GRP.No.2036 of 2025 DISMISSING THE C.R.P. 6e?e'\ W-^ -" -.<a\d- (\"\r