The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVI REVISION PETITION No.1811 OF 2025 Heald Sri Mirza Azharttlla Baig, leamed counsel lor the pclitroners.

2. In compliance w'ith the ordcr dated 20.06.2024, learned counsel lol the petitioners has filed proof o I service vide memo USR No.60590, dated 25.06.2025. Despitc Service of notice, there is no representation on behall ol the respondent.

3. ]'his revision is filed under Atticle22T of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in I.A.(SR) No.23 ol 2022 in O.S.No.756 of 2021 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagr.

4. Respondent herein/plaintiff has trted the aforesaid suit against the petitionels here in/def'cndants lor perpetual injunction' During pendency of the said suit, petitioners filed I'A'No'23 of 2022 in O.S.No.756 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 1l of CPC to reject the said plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action in the plaint' The respondent l.rerein has suppressed about earlier suit vide O.S.No.56 of 2018 filed for declaration of title and recovery of 2 possession of suit schedule properly therein and tn i:rre prcsented that the said suit uras decreed. The said suit was actr.rally dismissed as abaled on 2l .10.2021 on the ground that sole plai ntif- therein died. The respondent herein did not rnention about the clatc orr wh:ch he car.ne into possession of the said property. Thercfore, on the said grounds. the petitioners herein sought to reject the pll int

5. Respondent herein/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application cor-rlending that there is no suppressiorr ol lirct fiom his sidc as alleged by thc petitioncrs, and causc of e,.:tion is a ntixed question of larv and fact. There is no misrepresentu I ior r ol' the l'act in the plaint in O.S.No.756 of 2021.

6. On consideration ol the said aspects onlr. r,ide impr.rgned order dated 03.02.2025, leamed tria[ Courl disrnisscri the said application holding that cause of action is a mixed clrrestion of law and fact and on the said ground that plaint cannot be le.jectcd. '['hcrc is specific mentior.r by the plaintiff in the plaint that cause ol'action alose on i.e. 09.07.2021 at Karimnagar. With regard to r.he earlier suit in O.S.No.56 o1'20 18, the plaintifl has specificallv rncntioned about the earlier suit in paragraph No.5 and that O.S.No.56 o1' l0l8 rvas initially decleed ex pat'te. 'lhe same was set aside. Thereaftcr. il. uas disnrissed -) as abated vide order dated 27.10.2021. Therefore, challenging the order, dared 03.02.2021 in I.A.No.23 012022 in o.S.No.756 0f 2021, the petitioners filed the present revision.

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is no cause of action in the ptaint. The plaintiff has misrepresented the t'acts and suppressed pendency of the earlier suit. Without considering the said aspects, the learned trial Courl dismissed the said application to r-eject the plaint. LIe has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in T.Arivandandam vs. T.V.Satyapalr, Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal2, Bhargavi Constructions vs' Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy3, Mayandi vs. Pandarachamya Thangam vs. Navamani Ammals and Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (dcad) by Lrs.6

8. As discussed supra, the present rcvision is f-rted challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 in I.A.No.23 ol 22 in O.S.No.756 of 2O2l wherein the petitioners sought to reject the plaint. Rejection of plaint is no more res intergrct. ' n IR 1977 SC 2421 2 eIR 2ol7 sc 2653 t 2olz INSC 867 20 l9 Lawsuit (sC) 1859 5 zo2+ INSC t6+ t'a.IR 2019 sc 1430 4 1 :i

9. lt is relevant to note that in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)7, the Apex Courl had an occasion to deal with the object of Order - VII, Rule - ll (a) and (d) o1'CPC and rejection of plaint and also nature of enquiry to be nrade by the Courl while deciding an application filed under Order - VII. Rulc - I I (a) ol CPC. ln the said case, the defendant filed an applica tion rrnder Order - VII. Rule - ll (a) and (d) to reject the plaint on tl'r: ground tliat the suit rvas barred bv lirnitation and no cause of action hus becn disclosed in the plaint. Sale deed rvas executed on 02.07.2009 and thc strit rvas filed on 15.11.201,1. The cause of action as per the in'enrents ol'thc plaint therein had arisen when defendant No.l thcrcin had issued 'falsc' or 'boqus' cheques to the plaintifls in 20(19. I'he suit lor cancellation o1'the sale deed dated 02.07.2009 cotrl,.l havc been filed by 2012, as per Articles - 58 and 59 of the Limitatio r Act, 1963. The suit r.vas filed on 15.12.2014, which was barrecl br limitation Considering the said t-acts, the trial Court rejected the plaint filed by the ptaintiff by allowing the application filed under ()rder - VII, l{ule - I I (d). The High Courl confirmed the said order passed by the trial Courl. On consideration of the said facts and also purport of (Jrder - ' alR zo2o sc .l-1lo ) I ) VII, Rute - 11 of CPC, the Apex court held that in view of Order - Vll, Rule - 14 of CPC, documents filed along with plaint are to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order - Vll, Rule - 1l (a) of CPC. When a document ret-ened to in the plaint, lorms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as part of the plaint. In exercise of power under Order - VlI, Rule - I I of CPC, Coutt would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, tbr deciding whether a case tbr rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application tbr rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. i) The Apex Court further held that the test fbr exercising the power under Order - VII, Rute - 1l of CPC is that if the averments rnade in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon would the same result in a decree being passed' ii) The Apex Court also relied on the principle laid down by it in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success 18, wherein it was held that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action 8 zbo+ \ ) 9 SCC 512 6 or not is essentially a question of fact. But, whether it does or does not lnust be found out from reading the plaint its.:lf. For the said purpose, tlre avcrments made in the plaint in their enliret), tnust be held to be correL-t. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a dccrec would be passcd iii) The Apex Court considered the principle lair{ down tr5, it in Hardcsh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.e, to the et-''ect that it is not pemrissible to cr.r[[ out a sentencc or a passage, antl to read lt rn isolation. It is thc substance, and not merely thc folrr, rvhich has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed asl stands, r.vithout addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint plima facie show a cause ol'action, the court cannot embarli upon an ernquiry wl-rether the allc-gations are truc in fact. The said prirrciple was also reiterated in D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakirantan'0 iv) The Apex Courl also held that if on a meaLrir.rgful reading of' the plaint, it is tbund that the suit is manifestly vexeLtious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order - VII Itule - I I CPC '. (zooz) 5 scrcr 614 "'. 1 19901 3 scc 267 ,/t 7 The power under Order - VII Rule - 11 CPC rnay be exercised by the Courl at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or afier issuing summons to the defendant, or befbre conclusion of the trial. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in Salecm Bhai v. State of Maharashtrarr. v) ln Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhir2, the Apex Court further held that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial. vi) 1'he provision of Order - VII Rule - I I of CPC is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint "shall" be rejected il any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out- If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the strit is barred by any law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint. "Causc of action" lneans every fact which would be necessary lor the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary lbr the ptaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the teliefs claimed in the suit. l2 Qool) 1e86 h I SCC 557 upp. SCC 315 8 3 vii) In ITC Lttl. v. Debts Recovery Appellate 'l'ribunaltr, the Apex Court hctd that law carrnot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is r.hat a clear right rnust be rnadc out in the plaint. The Apcx Court fur1her held r.hat if, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has creatcd the illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the burl, so tl.rat bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. Thc Court rnust bc vigilant against anv calnoufla{Ic or suppression, and deterrtrine ,,vhether thc litigation is uttcrly veratious, and an abuse of the prrccss o1'Cr)Lrfi as hcld by thc ,Apex Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed ,Ialalra. ix) TIic Lirnitation Act, 1963, prescr.ibes a tirre-lirnit :irr the institution ol all suits, appeals, and apptications. Section 2O defines the expression "period of limitation" to mean the per.iod of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits, appeals or applications. Section - 3 lays down that every suit instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed even though limitation may not have been set Lrp as a defence. lf a suit is not covered by any specific a(i,;le, then it would f-all within the lesiduary article. '3. 1r098;2 sgxt 7c) 14. 1zon1 6sc'c r z+ I I r i 9 x) As per Article - 58 olthe Limitation Act, suit for declaration has to be filed within three (03) years when the right to sue first accrues. Article - 59 says suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or dccree or lor the rescission of a contract shall be filed within three (03) years, when thc facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrutnent ol decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to hirn. As per Article 58 of Limitation Act, suit fbr partition has to be filed within three years from the date of I'efusing the partition, the suit sohedule property and Article 58 of the Limitation Act deals with the suit for declaration. xi) In Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of Indiars, the Apex Court held that the use of the word "first" between the rvords "suc" and "accrued", would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of lirnitation will begin to run frotn the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations o{' thc right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period o[ limitation counted from the date rvhen the right to sue first accrues t5 \or rl r scc r26 t0 r' xii) In State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singhr('. ir three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the Couft must e:anrine the plaint ar-rd detenninc r,r hcn the tight to sue first accrued to the plaintifl and whether on thc assumed facts, the plaint is within .ir-ne. I'hc q.ords "right to sue" rnean the right to seek reliel- b1 mear.rs of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when thr cause of action arises. The suit must bc irrstitutcd when the right asscrled in the suit is infringed, or u,lrcn there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by thc dclcndant against r.vhom thc suit is irrstituted. Or-dcr - VII Rule - ll (d) provides that where a suit appear.s from tlie averments in thc plaint to be barrcd by any law, tl-e plaint shall be rejected.

10. The Apex Court also held rhar white ,.lealing with the application undcr Order 7 Rule ll of C.P.C., rhe rrial (]ourt has to consider the contentions of the plaintilT and docur-rents filcd alon_e rvith the plaint.

11. In the liglrt of the albresaid principles, coming ro the l)resenr case, as discusscd supra, the petitioners/defendants 1ile.d the aftrresaid 16 (1991) 4 SCC I l1 application under Order VII Rule I 1 ol CPC to reject the plaint rnainly on the following three grounds:- there is no cause of action, lt. there is suppression of fact by the plaintiff i.e. O.S.No.56 of 2018, lll. The plaintiff did not mention the date on which he came into posscssion of the suit schedule propedy.

12. In ttre tight of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that in paragraph No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff in handwriting mentioned about the earlier suit in O.S.No.56 of 2018. The said suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafier, sole plaintiff therein died and legal heirs of the sole plaintilf therein did not take any steps to come on record. On consideratiou of the same only, vide order dated 27 .10.2021, Iearned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said suit, as abated. l3 In the plaint in O.S.No.756 of 2021, respondent/plaintiff categorically stated that he has acquired the subject property from his mother vide registercd agreement of sale bearing document No.5449 of 2016 dated 25.05.2016. In the said plaint, plaintiff has specifically mentioned when cause of action arose that one year back, the ') \ defendants askcd the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule propertl, i.e. on 09.07.2021 at Karimnagar, when the defendants intcrlered wirh the possession of thc plaintilf over the suit schcdule pr.of,crly and tried to construct compound u,all in the suit house. .Th_'rcfore. hc has specifically pleaded about tlre cause of action. He has also rrcnt_ioned about the date on which he was inducted into the poss:ssiorr of thc suit schedule property.

14. In vicrv o1'the principlcs Iaid dorvn by the 1,pcr Ctourt in the aforesaid decisions, causc ol'action is n-rixed qucstior ol- law and lact. It is a bundle of 1acts. It is a tr-iable issue.

15. As discussed supra, there is no suppressir,rr ol. f-act bv the plaintiflinctudins the earlier suit o.S.No.56 of 20 lg. I'he ptaintiff has specifically averred ,r,ith regard to the datc of his inductio, into possessio, of the suit schedulc propefiy. l-he sairl conte,ti.ns of plaintiff and defcndants are triable issues, and they huve. t. participate in the trial and raise the said contentions during trial. It is Ibr the trial Court to consider the same. On the said grounds, the plaint cannot be rejected.

16. On consideration of the said aspects onll . r idc irnpugr.red order dated 03.02.2025, leamed trial Courl clisnrissed thc, said l3 application. It is a reasoned older and well founded. The petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order.

17. In view of the above discussion, this revision is dismissed As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions,, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 llAdditional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District 2. One CC to Mr. MIRZA AZHARULLA BAtc, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies M- HIGH COURT DATED: 0410712025 ORDER CRP.No.1811 of 2025 i,lr- Sth /{r 00 sEP u5 ( -Dr \: 'S'': r.,-':; t' ',i -- :- :., -.-. '2. :u \t \ This Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. g 1V