1. Merugu Karunakar v. 1. Merugu Sujatha

Petrtion under Section 151 OF 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 Prl. Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar for the OS No. 25 1 of 2022 for the pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. lA NO:2 OF 202s Petition under Section 151 OF CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to ----------=7 grant permission to th€, ApplicanVPetitioner No.3 to represent and plead my caser as Party-ln-Person an,l depose on behalf of the Petitioner No.1 and 2 pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petiti:rners: SRl. RAMACHANDRA RAO PAlCrl Counsel for the Respondents: GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2 oF 2025 ORDER: This Revision has been hled challenging the proprietary decree and order dated 13.02.2025 in I.A. No.477 of 2023 in O.S. No-251 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimanagar.

2. Heard Mr. Merugu Srinivas, Party-in-person for the petitioners and Mr. Gummalla Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. Briefly stated, the rclevant facts are that the respondents, as plaintiffs, filed a suit seeking partition of the schedule properties. The revision petitioners/defendants, in turn, Iiled an interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 1 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint. The Court be low, after considering the pleadings, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners/ defendants preferred the present revision. \

4. The petitioners, appearing in person, contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit is barred by I !I\-- i limitation, whi<:h squarely falls under clause (d) of Rule I l. 1'hey further submit that the suit has been undervaiued and that the plaint does nol disclose a cause of action. According to them, the trial Court improperly evaluated both the facts and the larv, and therefore prays for interference in revision and to reject the plaint.

5. Per Cont-ra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit seeks partition of properties among co-sharers, and at the st.lge of deciding an application for rejection of the plaint, only the plaint avcrments are to be cor-rsidered. He argues that the trial Court correctly evaluated the pleadings and rightly obsen,ed that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and that valuation ol propert5r can be addressed at an appropriate stage. He further contends that disrnissal of the plaint at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the respondentsT'plaintiffs, whereas allowing the suit to proceed would not affcct the interests of the petitioners/ defendants, who retain full opportunity to raise their objections during trial and at subsequent stages of adjudication. The issues of limitation, valuation, and cause of action may appropriately be considered during the framing and determination of issues. Accordingly, \ 7 3 the petition lacks legal merit, and the revision deserves dismissal.

8. I have perused the materials on record.

9. The core contention of the revision petitioners/ defendants is that the suit schedule properties had already been partitioned in the year 20O6. Consequently, according to them, the filing of the present suit in 2022 is clearly barred by limitation. They further assert that since the parties are already in separate possession of their respective shares, the claim for joint possession and the payment of a fixed Court fee is untenable. In their view, there was no occasion for instituting the present partition suit, and the cause of action pleaded in the plaint lacks any legal or factual basis.

10. It is well settled that at the stage of considering an application under Order Vll Rule 11 CPC for rejection of a plaint, the Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and not the defence set up by the defendants. The test is whether, on a plain reading of the plaint, it discloses a cause of action, is properly valued, sufficiently stamped, and not barred by law. If any of these conditions is not satisfied, the plaint must be rejected. The Hon'ble Suprerrr6 .- - Court in Popat ond Kotecha Propertg u' State Bank of htdio Staff Association, (2oo5) 7 SCC 510, reiterated this principle, emphasizing that 1'he plaint should be rejected only if it fails to discloseacauseofactiononitsface.Similarly,inHardesh()res (P) Ltd. u. Hede &' Co., (2OO7l 15 SCC 614' the Court cautioned that rejection of tr plaint at the threshold is a drastic rneasure and therefore the power must be exercised with circurnspection and only in cases where the defect is apparent on the [zrce of the plaint. In the prt'sent case, the respondents/ plaintiffs specifically 1 1 . plead that the suit schedule properties were never partitioned' lhat they continue to remain in joint possession' an(l that their demand for partition had been refused by the co-sharers' These averments, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie cause ol action in favour of the plaintiffs The plea of the petitioners that partition was effected in 2O06, that the parties are in separate possession, and that no further partition is maintainable' are all matters of ,lefence. Such issues can only be examined upon trial, when evidence is adduced, and not at the preliminary stage of der;iding an application for rejection of tht: plaint' -.-<-+-__ * _ __-____i*-J-v

12. In this view, the trial Court, having considered the pleadings, rightly concluded that the contentions of the revision petitioners did not justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Its reasoning was both reasonable and legally sustainable.

13. In these circumstances, this Court finds no rational or tenable ground to interfere with the conclusions recorded by the triai Court in the impugned order. However, it is clarified that the revision petitioners/ defendants shall retain full liberty to raise all their contentions, including those relating to limitation, prior partition, and separate possession, before the trial Court at the appropriate stage during the adjudication of issues'

14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed' No order as to costs. Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany'pendinginthePetition, shall stand closed SD/.M ASSISTANT .NAGAMANI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, /-tu,V Karimnagar

1. The Prl. Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class at 2. One CC to SRI RAMACHANDRA 3. One CC to SRI GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY Advocate IOPUCI (. \ruoCDCoP\es RAO PAIDI Advocate IOPUCI GR]!SL -'-"-"4 \ HIGH COURT DATED:04109112025 ORDER CRP.No.2430 of 2025 1n nci '.a11-:irr:1-) DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION /;\ (U{t1 t0 th \ t,