The High Court · 2025

16. Nisar Ahmed, S/o Ghulam Ahmed and Saleem Fathima, Aged 87 years, occ. business, Rio H.No.8-2-351ll, Road No.3 and 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 17.Smt. R. Radha Bai, Wo R.K. Guru Lingam, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. B-1-364/4, Pochamma Temple, Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 1B.M/s. Jayabheri Entertainments Pvt. Ltd, Having its oJfice at Plot No.1 , Jayabheri Enclave, Near Botanical Garden, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director Sri Kishore Duggirala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah, Aged 63 years

19.M/s Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at Plot No.1, Jayabheri Enclave, Near Botanical Garden, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director Sri Kishore Duggirala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah, Aged 63 years

20. Sri Kishore Duggirala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ. business, Rlo A-24, Phase-ll, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-S0O 033 21. Sri Maganti Raja Babu @ Murali Mohan, S/o Madhava Rao, Aged 77 years, Occ. business, Rlo A-24, Phase-ll, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 033

22. Sri Maganti Ram lt/ohan, S/o fVlaganti Raja Babu or Murali Mohan, Aged 49 years, Occ. business, Rlo A-24, Phase-ll, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 033.

23. Smt. Y. Sujatha, Wo Y Ravindra Babu, Aged 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Plot No.'12'19, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 33.

24. Smt. Y. Prathima, D/o Y. Ravindra Babu, aged 41 years R/o Plot No.53-C, Road No.1 , Film Nagar, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad.

25. Smt. S Sridevi, Wo S. Krrshna, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Household, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartments, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad

26. Smt. R. Jyothi, W/o R. Lalith Prasad, Aged about 50 years, Occ Household, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartments, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad.

27. Smt. K. Hemalatha Rao, Wo late K. Keshava Rao, Aged 71 years, Occ. House wife, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartments, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad

28. K. Prakash, S/o K. Keshava Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ. business R/o Kowur town, West Godavari district, Aged 54 years, occ. business, R/o Plot No.'12'19, Road No.36, Rep. by his GPA Holder K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o K Suryanarayana, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad

29. D. Gopal Ji, Sio late Nageshwar Rao, Aged 43 years, Occ.business, R/o H.No 13-3-7481N2, L.B. Nagar Ziaguda, Hyderabad - 500 012

30. D. Bajranga Ji, Sio D. Laxman Ji, Aged 59 years' Occ business' R/o - H No.t3-5-748tN2,L.B Nagar, Ziaguda, Hyderabad - 500012 3'l . D. Laxman Rao, S/o late Tuiaram, Aged 51 years, Occ business' F/o H.No.13-3-748/4/2, L.B. Nagar, Ziaguda, Hyderabad - 500 012 32. Mohan Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh, Aged about 60 years' Occ Agriculture' Rlo H.No.1133, Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal' R R Dist- eS CopaL'Singn, 6/o trt" Narayan Singh, Aged 38 years, Occ agriculture' R/o H No.1-33, Nanakramguda village Serilingampally Mandal' R R Dist a+ kunOan Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh, Aged 55 years' Occ agriculture' R/o H.No,1-33, ilanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal' R R' Dipt 35 Ramesh Singh, S/o lat,e Narayan Singh' Aged about 43 years' occ agriculture, R/o H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda village 36.A;hok Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh Aged 48 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal' R R Dist 3T.Akkineni Ramesh, S/o ALV Praiad, Aged 82 years, Occ business' R/o H.No.B-2-293l8zlFl34tA'RoadNo.1'l,FilmNagar'sitell'Jubileehills' Hyderabad - 33.

38. Kurra Srinivasa Rao, S/o K. Narayana Rao, Aged about 52 years' Occ.business R/o Road No.36' Jubilee Hills, Hyderqba :S ASN Rair, S/o AVS Raju, Aged 59 years, Occ business R/o Plot No 1684' +0 A-irinivas Ram Raju, Sio nVS Raju, Aged 50 years, Occ business' R/o Plot Road No.10, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad No,'t684, Road No 10, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad' R/o Plot No.1684, Road No.'10, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad'

41.A Venkata Narasimha Raju, S/o AVS Rant, Aged 57 years' Occ business' 42.Smt. K, Ratna, Wo K. Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 65 years' Occ business' 43.Anumula Appi Reddy, S/o A Rami Reddy, Aged 68 years' Occ business' Rio R/o H.No.8-2-32419, Road No.3' Banjara Hills, Hyderabad' Rentapalla village, Sattenpalli Mandal, Guntur District'

44. M/s. Sri Sairam-Projects Ltd' Rep by its Director Sri Rama Krishna Pilaka' S/o P.S. Krishnamurthy, aged 54 years, R/o H No 8-3-231lVV/17' Krishna Nagar, HYderabad - 45 a5 Smi Ch. Vasumathi, W/o late Ch. Madhava Rao, Aged 78 years' R/o Plot No.5, Road No.9, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad 46 Ch. Ramesh, S/o Sri Madhava Rio, Aged 63 years, R/o Plot No 277' Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, HYderabad

47.Ch. Ramesh Babu, S/o Sri poornachandra Rao, Aged 45 years' R/o Plot No.241, Kamalapur colony, Phase-ll, Hyderabad' Jubilee Hills, HYderabad. Pedamaddali village, Krishna District' aA M. AnuiaOna, Wio M.S. Riiu, Aged 53 years, Rlo B-24' Journalist colony' 4g.Chalasani Veniata Narayana, S/o late Sreerama Murthy, Aged 54 years, To 50 Smt Surya Devara Vijaya Laxmi, Wo S Srinivasa Rao' Aged 48 years' 51. P- Renish Reddy, S/o Patnam Mahender Reddy, Aged 27 years' Road No '12' 52 Suryadevara Sieenivasa Rao' S/o Suryadevara Subba Rao' Aged 52 years' Yadava Bazar, D.No.i6-15-91, Old Guntur, Guntur District Banjara hills, HYderabad Yad'ava Street, Old Guntur, Guntur district (Respondents 3 to 52 are not necessary 11[E3fo*r=NTS/RESpoNDENTS ! lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 further proceedings in OS 593 of 2018 on the file of the lll Additronal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L B Nagar, pending disposal of the current Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.V. PRATAP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1't71 OF 202 0 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia is filed aggrieved by the order dated24.02.2020 passed in lA No. 917 of 2019 in OS.No.593 of 2018 by the court of the lllAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar. Between: A.Venkata Narasimha Raju, Son of AVS Raju, aged about 56 years, occ. Business, R/o Plot No.564, Road No.31, Jubrlee Hills, Hyderabad AND ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.40

1. Mala Br4kumar Bahktani, W/o Brijkumar Motilal Bhaktani, aged About 64 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.102, lstfloor, Breeze Building, Charkop [\4anav CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West lVIumbai, Maharashtra-400 067.

2. Satyam Brij Kumar Bhaktani, Son of Brij Kumar Motilal Bhaktani, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o.102, 'lst floor, Breeze Burlding, Charkop [\/anav CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 067.

3. M/s VRCR Real lnfra Developers Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Director V. Ramchandra Rao, S/o Late V. Musalaiah R/o H. No. 8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telengana - 500034

4. V Ramchandra Rao, S/o V. Musalaiah R/o H. No 8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telengana - 500034 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 all further proceedings in o.S No.593 of 20'l B on the file of the lll Additional District and Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L B Nagar, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. P. BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MOHD. MOIN AHMED QUADRI CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO: 1357 OF 2O2O Petition under Article 227 o'f the Constitution of lndia is filed aggrieyed by the order dated 24.02.2020 passed in lA No. 916 of 2019 in OS.No. 593 of 20'18 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy d istrict at L.B. Nagar. Between: A. Srinivas Ram Raju, Son of AVS Raju, aged about 50 years, Occ Business R/o Plot No.2B5, Road No.25, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/PETITIO&ER/DEFENDANT NO.39 AND

1. Mala Brijkumar Bahktani, Wo Brijkumar lt/lotilal Bhaktani, aged About 64 years, Occ. House Wife, Rlo.102,1st floor, Breeze Building, Charkop Manav CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West lvlu mbai, Itilaharashtra400 067.

2. Satyam Brij Kumar Bhaktani, Son of Brij Kumar Motilal Bhaktani Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Rio.102, 1st floor, Breeze Building, Charkop Manav CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West Ivlumbai, Maharashtra 400 067. 3, M/s VRCR Real lnfra Developers Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Director V. Ramchandra Rao, S/o Late V. Musalaiah R/o H. No. 8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12.,Baniara Hills, Hyderabad Telengana -500034

4. V. Ramchandra Rao, S/o V. Musalaiah R/o H. No. 8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telengana -500034 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. P. BALAJI VARMA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MOHD. MOIN AHMED QUADRI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER a. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION Nos.1159,1171 & 1357 I 2O2O COMMON ORDER: Sincc the /is and parlies involved in thcse revision petitrons are same, these rnatters were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order.

2. CRP.Nos.l159, 1171 and 1357 of 2p2O are hled by defendant Nos.35, 40 and 39 respectively, challenging the orders dated 24.O2.2O2O passed in IA.Nos.1043, 917 and 916 of 2019 respectively, in OS.No.593 of 2O18 by the III Additional Dislrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

3. The bnef facts of these cases are that the revision petitioners who are defendants in the above surts filed the above IAs., under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil procedure Code (for short 'CPC') praying for rejection of plaint. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said IAs., utde impugned orders dated 24.02.2020 obser-ving that the plaint discloses some cause of action and the same is sufflcient even though the chance of success for the plaintiff in the suit, are remotc. Hence, these revisions. 2

4. Heard learned counscl for petitioners, and learned counsel appea-ring for respondents, respectively, in al1 the revision petitions.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are replete with glaring illegalities and contraventions of established legal principles. He contended that the plaints and supporting documents hled by the plaintiffs woefully fail to disclose valid cause of actions for the suits, particularly with regard to the reliefs sought for recovery of possession and cancellation of registered documcnts executed since the year 197 7. He lamented that egregious Iacunas were further compounded by the respondents' categorical admission in their plcadings in OS.No.27 of 2010, wherein, they unequivocally acknowledged executing a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in the year 197O, authorizing the attorneys to sell the 1ands, which were coupled with the subsequent sa-le to third parties, renders the suit irrevocably barred by limitation. He asserted that the respondents have engaged in a blatant exercise of creating an illusory and manufactured cause of actions, replete with frivolous and 3 mischievous assertir>ns, r,l,hich are utterly dcvoid of any factual foundation.

6. Lrarncd counsel for petitioners incessantl], c<tntended that the failure of respondents to specify the date of iand acquisition proceedings for the Outer Ring Road (ORR), u,hich occurred in the year 20OS 06 and that the same is a glaring omission which would highlight the infirmities rn their case. He averred that thc rcspondenLs cannot, bc pcrntittecl to circumvent the law of limitation through cleve r drafting, artfully omitting crucial dctails that would unequivocally render the suit barred, and that the attempt of respondents to create a cause of action through false statements lnade on oath is utterly unsustainable in law, and thii t the same warrants stringent reprobation. In support of their contentions, reliance was placed on the judgmcnts renclered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben Vs. Awiadbhai Kalyanji Bhanusalil, C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and Others2, and in the judgment rendc.red by this Court in Bajranglal Agarwal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and 'lzozoy z scc soo 'z (2022)sCC OnLine 5C 1330 4 Otherss. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow these revision petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated 24.02.2020.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the allegations made by the petitioners are entirely false, baseless, and devoid of any merit. They averred that the plaints would clearly discloses a valid cause of actions for the suits, as the respondents have specihcally pleaded that they came to know about the fraudulent GpA and sale deeds through a news article published in the month of May 201g. They lamented that the suits were well within the limitation period as the respondents have pleaded sufficient facts to establish their title and claim for recovery of possession. They emphasized that the respondents' pleadings are clear, specihc, and unequivocal, and that they have provided ample evidence to support their contentions. In addition, they asserted that the contentions of leaned counsel for petitioners are entirely outside the scope of Order VII Rule 1 1 of CpC which governs I (2024) SCC OnLine TS 1823 I art*,ir. - .1rttt3x:l the rejection of plaints. They reiterated that the plaints cannot be rejected on the basrs of allegations made by the petitioners, as the same were unfounded and unsupported by evidence. In support of their contentions, they relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others v. Assistart Charity Commissioner and Othersa, Chhotanben and Another v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Otherss, Salim D. Agbotwala and Others v. Shamatji Oddnavji Thakkar and Others6 Urvashiben and Another v. Krishnakant Manuprasad TrivediT, Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Otherss, P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and Another v. P. Neeradha Reddy and Otherse, C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai and Anotherlo, Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited v. Central Bank of India and Anotherll and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others12. Therefore, while '( '( '(,( "( 11 t2 'CC