The High Court · 2025

COUNSEI fOr thE PEtitiONEri SRI. MAGANTI SATYANARAYANA, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.{ and 2: SRt. T. RAMCHANDRA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: THEI{ONOURABLESMT.JUSTTCERENUKAYARA SI PE ON 188 , ORDER: Heard Sri Maganti Satyanal?yana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri rhimmaraju Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l and2. Perused the entire record'

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.04-2024 passed by leamed Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District (.triat court'), in I.A.No.l934 of 2023 in o-S.No-325 of 2a21, wherein petition filed under order vll Rule I 1 of cpc filed seeking rejection of plaint was dismissed, the present revision is preferred'

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos'1 and2 herein have filed suit for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein with respect to suit schedule properties consisting of Ac'O- 09 guntas in Sy.No.t88/E/l ancl Ac.0-06 guntas in Sy.No.l88/E/3 situated at Hythabad village, Shabad Mandal, I(anga Reddy District. Respondent Nos'l andZherein claim to be the owners of the suit schedule properties as the same were their ancestral properties aucl arc in possession of the same' Respondent Nos.l and2alleged that respondent No.4 along with others i.e., the revision petitioner and respondent No.3 and 5 have made attempts to grab the suit RY,J cRP 1887 2024 schedule prope:rties and such attempts were resisted by. respondent Nos' I and 2 andsuch instances led to filing of the suit for perpetual injunction-

4. per conira, the case of the revision petitioner and respondent Nos-3 to 5 is that rcspondent Nos.l and 2 herein along with respondent No.3 executed an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney ('GPA') with possession dated 19.08.2008 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide document bea:ing No.4l23 of 2008. Thereafter, on 22.07.2020, respondent Nos.4 and 5 a.s authorized GPA holders of respondent Nos' l to 3 executed registered sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner vide document bearing No.6375 of 2020. Ever since the execution of the agreement of sale-cum- GPA with possession dated 19.08.2008, respondent Nos.l to 3 were never in possession ol'the suit schedule properties. However, responclent Nos.l and 2 by suppressing the factum of execution of the said registered agreement of sale-cum-GPl, with possession in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 r'icle docur.lenr No4l23 of 2008, dated 19.08.2008 and also registered sale deed, dared 22.07.2020 executed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in lavour of the revision petiticner have filed false suit seeking perpetual injunctiort. 5 It is urSged that the suit is filed seeking bare injunction r.vithout seeking cancellatiorr ot' agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated

19.08.2008 and also registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020. Further, it is 2 RY,J cfi.P 1887 2024 argued that the limitation for seeking cancellation of botfr the registered , documents has expired and by employing clever drafting respondent Nos'1 and Zhave filed suit for perpetual injunction. [n that context, the t'A' under revision was filed to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC due to lack of cause of action and as the relief of cancellation of the registered documents is barred by limitation. uuuing considered the case of both the parties i.e., the revision petitioner as well as respondent Nos' t and 2' the trial Court dismissed the petition by way of impugned order' Grounds of revision:- In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the impugned order is 6. contrary to established provision of law and that the trial Court has lost complete sight of documents filed in the suit, as the registered documents agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated 19.08-2008 and registered sale deed, dated 22-07.2020, have not been taken ir rto considera{ion'

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to consider that respondent Nos.l and 2 were never in possession ever since execution of agreement of sale-cunr-CPA with poSsession' dated

19.08.2008. When respondent Nos.l and 2 ate not in possession of the suit 3 RY,J cRP 1887 2024 schedule properties, the question of interference by the revision petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 to 5 does not arise. It is also argued that suit for bare injunction without seeking the consequential relief of cancellation of registered docrrments is not maintainable as per the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In that context, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai I , I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Kalyanji Bh:rnusali Tribunal', T. A.iuandandam v. T V Satyapal3 and Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheba. Contentions c,f respondent No s.1 and 2:

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 argued that ttre trial Court has to consider the pleadings of the plaint and documents filed by the plaintifl' along with it firr considering rejection of suit under Order Vll Rule I I of CPC i.e., the trial Court cannot consider the contents of the written statement or the documents filt:d by the defendants. In that context, reference is made to the judgrnent of tlris Court in Vinod Lahoti v. Viswanath Lahotis, wherein it is held that the Clourt must not selectively pickup the averments in the plaint and read them in isolation while examining the existence of cause of action in 1 2o2o Lawsuit (Sc) 46s '(rggg) 2 scc 70 I t 1977 tawsuit (Scl ]07 Civil Appeal No.27 t7 ot 2O23, dated 28.04.2023 'zozr 1s1 ALT r77 (r)B) (TS) 4 RY,J cRP 1887 2024 filing the suit. Further, it is held that the coum shall not look into the averments of the written statement and other documents filed in support of the case of the defendants. Lastly, it is argued that no title can be passed under agreement of sale-cum-GPA of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and therefore' no title is transferred to the revision petitioner herein under registered sale deed, dated

22.07.2020 Findinss of the Court:- g. A perusal of the record shows that when the merits of the case of the revision petitioner for rejection of the plaint are to be considerd' the plaint itself does not reveal any facts about the execution of agreement of sale-cum- cPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008 in favour of respondent Nos'4 and 5 or the registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020 executecl by respondent Nos'4 and 5 in favour of the revision petitioner' There is no averment about any other parties being in possession of the suit schedule properties except respondent Nos.l and 2. On the basis of such plaint ayerntents injunction is sought alleging that suit schedule properties are their atrcestral properties which are in their possession and there is interference by det'endants i'e'' respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the revision petitioner. Itespondent No.l and 2 have f,rled copies of pahanies ranging from 1985-86 to 2007-08 along with their pattedar Pass books. 5 RY,J cRP 1887 2024

10. tn the a[sence of any reference to the registered docuryents executed by , respondent Nos.l and 2 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 no inference can be drawn abgut respondent Nos.4 and 5 being in possession of the suit schedule properties or that respondent Nos.l and 2 have divested on their possession ev()r since the year 2008. In the circumstances, no finding can be made under Order VII Rule I I of CPC about lack of cause of action. When the pleadings of the plaint are to be taken to be true coupled with documents in support of the plaint no finding can be reached as to lack of cause of action. I l. With respect to the suit being barred by limitation, the trial Court has to necessarily peruse agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated

19.08.2008 arrd registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020. However, the said documents art: not ref'erred to by respondent Nos.l and 2 in their plaint. The said documen,is are furnished by the revision petitioner along with the written statement. As held by this Court in Vinod Lahoti (cited supra) and also since established pn:cedents preclude the trial Court from perusing pleadings of the written statement as welI as the documents fited by the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 as delbndants, no assessment can be made about non- maintainability of the suit as barred by limitation

12. [n Arviindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (cited supra), it is also held as under: 6 RY,J cRP 1887 2024 ..In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhil this court held that the whole purpose of confennent of po*rrc under this provision is to ensure-ihat a.litigation which is meaningi"rr, and bound to prove abortive, should -n9t 9".1.1986 iupp.SCC 3t5lollowed in Maharaj Shri Manvendrasinhji Jadeja v' Rajmata Vijaykunverba w/o Late Maharaja Mahedrasinhji, (1998) 2 ,GLH 82i perrnitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words: ,,12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is ineaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be pennitted to occupy the tlme of the Court, and exercise the mihd of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging ov€r his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the fower to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose tl're Court ,"udity any cause of action." *12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in order vll Rule I I are required to be strictly adhered to."" "*"."i.".

13. As per rhe case in Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (cited supra), when the pleadings do not mention the date of the registered sale deed and there is a deliberate omission, then the trial Court can exercise its power under Order VIt Rule I I of cPc. The aforementioned case is primarily about clever drafting being ernployed to create an illusion of cause of action' in the r'vake of suppression of certain documents.

14. Having regard to the legal ratio laid down in Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (cited supra), this court is of the considered opinion tl"rat even if clever drafting is ernployed by suppressing agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, datecl 19.08.2008 and'registered sale deed, dated 22-07.2020, no assumption ancl presumption can be made about whether the suit schedule 7 RY,J cRP 1887 2024 properties are in possession of respondent Nos.l and Z.ot the revision , petitioner here:in. There is always a probability that ir, ,pit" of execution of the registered documents the actual possession was never parted with. Therefore, lack of cause of action cannot be inferred solely on the basis of suppression ot'the registered documents. Consequently, if the possession is still with resprondent Nos. t and 2, in spite of execution of the registered documents, no inference can be made about the suit being barred by limitation. TtLe burden of proof is on respondent Nos.l and 2 to prove their legal possession over the suit schedule properties and after the same is discharged, the burden shifts to the revision petitioner to prove their possession ovrlr the suit schedule properties. Only after full:fledged trial by recording the r:win issues of possession as we[[ as the limitation the issue can be decided.

15. In T. A,rivandandam and I.T.C. Limited (both cited supra), it is held that the Court must exercise its powers to shoot down the bogus litigation at the earliest stzrge. tf on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and rneritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his porver under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion ol'a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the 8 RY,J cRP_1887 2024 first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Or{er X, C'P'C' An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage'

16. In the instant case, assuming that the suit is barred by lirnitation with respect to registered documents i."., agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008 and registered sale deed, dated 22'07 '2020, the fact remains that no relief is sought in that context. The relief sought is that of bare injunction, therefore the suit has to be adjudicated on the basis of possession of either of the parties. In that event, the issue of limitation does > not anse.

17. In Ramisetty Venkatanna (cited supra), it is held as under: ,,6. ...we are of the opinion that tlre plaint ought to have been rejected in exercise of powers under order vII Rule XI(a) and (d).of cTC being vexatious, itiusory cause of action and barred by limitation' By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated It.03.i-953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provilion.of lirnitation act and have tried to rnaintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law'"

18. [n the above judgment, though there is suppression of tnatter of partition giving rise to inference about the suit being vexatious, in the instant case, the suppression of registered conveyance deeds need not necessarity 9 RY;J cRP 1887 2024 give rise to in [erence that respondent Nos. l and 2 are not in possession of the property.

19. In view of the forgoing discussion, this Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the re:sult, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order dated :10.04.2024 of the trial Court in I.A.No.1934 of 2023 in O.S.No.325 ot 2021. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, il'any, pending shall stand closed. SD'-M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I /ffRUE COPY/' OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

2. One CC to Sri. MAGANTI SAWANARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC]. 3.oneCCtoSri.T.RAMCHANDRARAo,Advocate[oPUc]. 4. Two CD C,cPies TTS/PSL \qr 10 ? r' I I C: (J 2 ] IAN 20lE '* * HIGH COURT DATED: 25l0gl',2025 ORDER CRP.No.1887 ol'2024 CRP IS DISMISSiED deG Xer