The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVTL REVISI ON PETITION No.2l78 of 2{125 ORDER: tleard Sri N.Laxman, learned counseI for petitioners' tlris Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 221 of' 2 theConstitutionoflndiachallengingtheorderdatcd 03.0:1.2025 passed by the Principat Senior Civil Judgc' Karirnrragar, in C.F.No'25 5l of 2024' [)etitioners herein filed the aforesaid suit ltl 3. O.S.(C.F.)No.2551 of 2024 against respondent to declare thc registered sale deed bearing document No'10123 o1' 20 l9' clatecl 01.09.20 19 executed by Sri Sardar Puran Singh and Surendcr Kaur in t'avour of Sardar Haricharan Singh as illegal' r.rulI and void, it is not binding on the petitioners - plaintifts' L'irla (Jrdet dated 03'04'2025' learned Principal Senior

4. Civil Judge, Karimnagar, rejected the plaint' Chaltengirlg the saitl order, petitioners fite<t the present Civil Revisitln Petition 2 lit.,.l c l< P \o 2 178 ot 2025

5. In the plaint itself, petitioners herein have specifically contended that they l.rave right over the suit schedule property. Rcspondent - defendant is distant relative of' late Sri S.Arrrar Singh, who is the original owner of the property. Late Sri S.Amar Singh is the great great grandfather o1'petitioncrs 2 to

4. Therefore, respondent herein had obtair.red the aforesaid registered sale deed bearing document No. l0l 23 of 2019 dated 03.09.2019. Petitioners sought to dcclare the said document as null and void. They have also further contended that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.l97 of 20 l3 against respondent and 9 others seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. 'l'he sald suit was disrnissed on 03.12.2024 by the learned Principal District Judge, Karminagar. Petitioners 2 and 3 are taking steps to preler an appeal challenging the said decree and.iudgrnent

6. lt is also further contended by the petitioners herein that respondent herein filed O.S.No.9 of 2005 agair.rst the said Sardar Puran Singh and his father, namell', Sardar Datrna - /-1 3 Kl-.., CliP\o2i78oI2o2l Singh and another lor specific performance ol contract o1 sale' dated 28.04.200,1 in respect of the very same property The said suit uas dccreed on 15.04.2008. Feeling aggrieved by thc same, Sardar Purau singh had preferred an appeal ilr A.S.No.6tt.l of 2008. The said appeal was partll' allou'ed' Therealier, respoudent - defendant filed Execution Petition ufulc E.P.No.2 ol 2014 and the same is pending' ln the said executiotr pctition, plaintiffNo.4 received summons in March'

2024. fl'rcrclbre, petitiorlers came to know about the said registercd sale deed bearing document No.l0l23 of 2019, dated 03.09.20 19. Thereafter, they have filed the aforesaid suit in O.S. (('.1:.) No.255l ol 2()24 to declare the aforesaid sale deed as uulland void. l. Vidc order dated 0-1.04.2025, learned trial Court rejected the said plaint holding that petitioners/plaintiffs are claiming right ovcr the suit schedule property through Sardar Puran Singh, who has already executed an agreement of sale dated

28.04.2004 in f'avour of the defendant, the said agreement ol 4 KL. J C R I')o 2178 oi 2025 sale was confirmed by the trial Court in O'S'No'9 of 2005 and decree in the said suit was upheld by Appellate Court vide A.S.No.684 of 2008. Petitioner Nos'2 and 3 - plaintil'i Nos'2 and 3 started second round of litigation by titing suit vide O.S.No.197 of 2013 which was dismissed on 03'12'2024' Respondent herein is defendant No'10 in O'S'No' 197 of 2013 .lhercfore, without seeking relief of binding nature of document i.e., registered sale deed bearing document No.l0l23 of 2019, dated 03'09.2019 in O'S'No'197 of 2013' without seeking leave of the Court under Order ll Rule 2 of C.P.C. to raise the defence of the binding naturc of the document in subsequent suit i.e., O'S'No'197 of 20 l3 rvhich was dismissed, petitioners cannot file the present sult'

8. Thus, taking into consideration the totality ol'the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings, docunrents and plaint, learned trial Court rejected the plaint opinirrg that the present ptaint is clearly barred by Order II Rule 2 o1'CI'P'C' as we ll as lirnitation. Learned trial Court also placed reliance on / 5 C R t'\o?l:ilol l(L J 2O2r three Judgments of thc I{on'ble SuPreme Couft in Revanasiddappa uttd attttlher v' Matlikariun" Sa'anpll Kaur others2 antl Anand v. Prttduntan Singh Chundhok and Datiben Valiibhai and othets v' Praiapati Kotlorhhai Kschr(tbhai snd unother't ' g. Perusal of the record would reveal that the suit schedule property in O.S.No' 197 ol'20 I 3 liled by petitioner Nos'2 and 3 admeasuring 860 square is House Nos.2-l-'16 arrd yards sittrated at Kamarr Road, Karimnagar Municipality' The schedule propert) irr rcgistcrccl sale deed bearing dt>cument No.10123 ol 2019, dated 03'09'2019 is also same including 2-3-47, the boundaries.

10. As discussecl srrTrra' petitioner Nos'2 and 3 filed the aforesaid suit in O.S.No'197 of 2013 seeking partition of the said property, the satlrc was dismissed' According 1o them' 'lccr'lt 'l 'rrr 0l 0q'l0ll' ' Cir il Appeul N,r.l3-ll 'l -'01 I r Civil Appeal No. or :rr:: fu,,.i,rc,,,,, "iSp".irr decided on 18.01 l0ll. ic.A.No.l.l29l oll0l-1 dccitl"'d on ll ll l0ll' [.eave Petition (c) No ']?794 ofl0l6 6 t.l-..1 C.R P \o 2l7tl ol )O2r they are taking steps to prefer an appcal against the said decree and judgrnent. I l. lr is the specilic contention of the petitioners that thcy carne to know about the said registered sale deed bearing document No.l0l23l20l9, dated 03.09.2019 on receipt of notice in Ir.P.No.2 of 2014 in March, 2024.There are specific pteadings to the said effect in the plaint

12. tt is apt to note that O.VII Rule I I of CPC, deals with rejection ol plaint, on the following grounds:- I l. Rejection of plaint. I he pluint shall bc rcicctc-d in thc lbllorving cascs- (a) rrherc it rloc: trot disclosc a cilttsc of actitln: (h) rrhcrc tirc re lie l clairned is undcrvalLted- and the plaintil'i. on heirrg rcquilctl lr tlle ( ()urt 1() corrcct thc raltutit'n iritltin a tiltlc to lrc lirctl br tlrc ( ottrt. tails lo do so: (r) \ hcrc thc rclrcf clainred is propcrll' value-d. but thc plaint is rclttrttetl upon pxpcr irrsulllcicnth stampcd, and the plaintill. on beir.rg lctluirctl l.!\ lhc ( (]r.rrt ro strppl;- the reqrrisite stalllp-pap.r lvithin a timc to be lircJ br the ( otrrt. lails ttr do str: (rI) rrhcrc the :Lril lppears liom the statemcnt in the plaint to be barled b_r ln_r larr: l'roriderl rhirt tltc tirne Iired bi' the Cotrrl ltrr the correctitttl ol lhc r ulrriltion or sttl)pl\ ine ()l lhc rcquisitc stall]p-llapcr shall not hc cxteLldcd Lrl)lcss tlrc ( orrrt- lirr rc{lsons to bc tccotclcd. is safisflccl thlf thc pltintilt 7 KL_. .l C R P No 2l7a oi2O2i \ras prc\:cnterl br ltnr citttse ()l'Jt'l c\cePttoll.ll nature tbmr conectitrg lhc valLration ()r supl)l\ing thc tct;tLi'iLe starnp-pap!-r- zrs the case tnay lrt" rritlrin thc tintc llretl Lrr rhe ('trtrrl atltl litat retusal to extenti such lime uoLrlti c:tLtsc rlrr e ittiLr.tiec t,r thc pllrirrtiil. I 3. It is settlcd lari' that thc trial Couft can exercisc the power under 0.VIt Rule ll ol'Cl'C at any stage of the suit even befbre registering the plaint or alier issuing summons to the defendant at any time before conclusion of trial. Power under the said provision can be exercised both at thrcshold of the proceedings, and in absence of any statutory restriction, at any stage of the subsequent proceedings. Hou'evcr. preliminary objection should be raised at the earliest. Thc saicl principle was also laid down in Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. vs. Union Bank of Intliar. In paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, the Apcx Court held as follows:-

14. It is apt to note that trial Court has power to reject the plaint suo-moto at anv stagc. 'l'he said power, though legally pennissible an judicially t'ecognized, is to he cxercised with caution and only in the cases where the del-ect is patent, incurable and discernable frorn the plaint itsel{' without lequiring any enquiry into the disputed facts. 'lhe trial courl is not only elnpowered but is also under a duty ' (zoo5) + scr.- ; li B I\L, J C R P.\o 2178 of2025 \ to consider the appticability of O'VII Rule t I of CPC at the threshotd stage, including prior to registration or numbering of the plaint and even belore issuance of suumons to the defendant' 15. In M/s. Patil Automation Private Limited and others vs' Rakheja Engineers Private Limiteds in paragraph No'68' the Apex Court held as fbllows:- ''68. On a considcration of the scheme of the Orders IV' V and Vll of the Codc of Cir,'il l'roccdure' we arrive at the following conclusions: (A) A suit is commenced by 'presentation of a plaint The date ol' the presentation in terms of Section 3(2) of the Limitation Act is the date of presentatiorl lbr the purpose of the said Act By virtue of Order IV Rule t(3). institution ol the plaint' howcver, is complete only when the plaint is in contbnnitl- rvith the requircment of Order VI and Order VII' (B) When the courl decidcs the question as to issue of summons lJndet' Order V Rule I. rvhat the coutl must consider is whether a suit has bcen dull institutcd. (C) Ordcr VII Rule I I does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty oi rejecting the plaint only on an application' Order VII Rulc 11 is' in lact- silent about any such requirement Since summon is to be issued in a duly institutcd suit. in a case where the plaint is bared Under Order VIt Rule ll(d), thc stage bcgins at that time when thc court can reiect the plaint Undcr Order VII Rule I 1' No doubt it would take a clear casc where thc court is satisficd fhe Court has to hear the Plaintifl belbre it invokes its porver besides giving reasons Under Order VII Rule 12' tn a on allegations in the suit, it is found that the suit is clear case. "r'here ' ArR lo22 scl 18.18 9 KL, J (l Ii P No 2l 78 oi 2025 barred by any law. as would bc the case. rvhcre the plaintiff in a suit under the Act does not plead circumstances to take his case out oi.the requirernent ol Secrion i2A. rhe plaint should be rcjected without issuing summons. Undoubtedly. on issuinq slunmorls it will bc alq,ays open to the Dclendant to make an application as ucll Ljnder Order VII Rule I l. In olher words, thc pouer tJnder Order VII Rule I I is ar,.ailable to the couft to be excrcisec{ suo lnotu. (Sec in this regard. the judgment olthis Court in Madiraju Venkata Ranrana llaju (supra).

16. tn Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs. pedclireddigari Ramachandra Reddy6, in paragraph No.l4, Apex Court held as follows:- "24. Ordinarily. an application for rejccrion of clection petition in limine, purportedly under ortier 7 r{urc l I ior non-discl.sure oIcause of action, ought to procced ar thc tluesholcl. [ror. it has to be consirlercd only on the basis of institutional del'ects in the clection petition in reference to the grounds specilicrl in clauscs (a) to (l) of Rule ll. Indeed, non-disclosure ol' cause o[' action is covered by. clause (a) therein. Concededly, Order 7 CpC generalll,.deals with the institution of a plaint. It delineates thc rcquirements regarding the particulars to be contained in thc plaint. relicl'to be speciticalll stated, for reliel. to be founded on separate grounds, proccdure on admitting plaint. and includes return of plaint. Thc re.jection of plainr lollows the procedure on admitting plaint or evcn before admitting the same. if the courl on presentation of the plaint is ol'the view that the same does not ftrll the statutory and institutional requirements relerrcd to in clauscs (a) to (f) ol Rule I l. 1'he pou.cr bestowed in rhc court in terrns ol Rulc I I nray also be exercised by the court on a lbnral application movcd by the 14 SCC I 10 [1..] C R.P.\o 2Ila ol 202r defendant aftcr being scrvcd with the summons to appear before thc Court. Bc that as it mar'. the application under Order 7 Rule 1l desen'es considcration at the thrcshold. " (emPhasis suPPlied). ll . ln Selvaraj and othcrs vs. Koodankulan Nuclear Power Plant India LimitedT in paragraph No.29, thc Apex Courl held as follows:- ''29. To surn up. the Cottrt Inal rcject thc plaint bcfbre numbering and entering it in the Register of'Strits. if fiom a reading of the plaint, it is seen that thc suit is barrcd b1 atrv lau. or if it suffers from any proccdural inlirn.ritl. adumbrated supra. fhe Court' at that stage' cannot and is nor erpected to conduct a roving enquiry into the mcrits ol- the matter by tcsting the corrcctlless ol the plaint-avermcnts even prior to its institution." (emphasis supplied)

18. ln Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali8, Apex Court held that the powcr conf'erred on the trial court under O.Vll Rute 1l ol CPC. to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one. and the conditions enumcratcd in O.VII Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. In exercisc of power under the said proviso, the Courl would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or juridical dicta, for ' (zoz I ) + c'rc 539 :SCC onLine Mad 25 l4 t 2020 scc onLine sc -i6l -' 11 Il-,] c R I \o -t r 7a (,I 20.)5 deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. t 9. 1'hus, Supreme Courl consistently held that the porver undel O.VII Ilulc 1l can be exercised suo-rnoto evcn bcfbre surlmons are issued or the plaint is registered, provided the det-ect is evident frorn the plaint itself. The aim is to prevent rnisuse of.ludicial tirre and protect defendants from frivolous litigation. Therefbrc, while the porver is broad, it must be used with care. Onlf incurable defccts. those that are patent and jurisdictional -iustifl re.iection Procedural lapses like undervaluation or deficient Court l-ee may bc rectified. But where the plaint discloses no cause ol action or is barred by statute. the court is duty bound to reject it. 20 ln the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the l-acls of the present case, the learned trial Court cannot re.lect the plaint on the albresaid grounds. Learned trial Court lailed to corlsider the aforesaid facts that the suit schedule propefty O.S.No.l97 of 2013 and the suit schedule property in the aforesaid unregistered suit is one and the same. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein are claiming right over the said property. l2 KL, J C R I')No 2178 of2025 2l . As discussed supra, the learned trial Court rejected the plaint without numbering it at the SR stage

22. It is apt to notc that learned trial Court rejected the plaint at the SR stage holding that the petitioner filed the present suit without seeking the reliel o1' the binding nature of the document i.e. registered sale deed bearing document No. 10123 of 2019 dated 03.09.2019 in O.S.No.l97 of 2013 and without seeking leave of the Court undcr Order ll Rule 2 of CPC to raise the defence of the binding nature of the document in subsequent suit, thc paftirion suit vide O.S.No.l97 of 2013 which was dismissed on contest. Thus, the suit is barred by limitation vide Order II Rule 2 of tlPC

23. As discussed supra, it is the specific case of the petitioner herein that thel, are takirrg steps to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.197 of 2013 and that they came to know with regard to the subject registered sale deed only on receipt of notice in E.P.No.2 of 2014 in March, 2024. Therefbre, they have llled the present suit lbr 13 h ! .r ( Ir l'\o lliS,,f20I) cancellation ol the said registered sale deed. Withor-rt considering the said aspects, learned trial Court re.iected thc plaint at SR stagc.

24. I-carned trial Court placed reliance on the albresaid judgrnents under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. It is relevant to note that O.tl of CPC deals with frame of suit and Rule 2 dcals with suit to include the whole claim and it savs even, suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintilf is cntitlcd to make in respect of the cause of action, but the plaintilT rnal' relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. Thus, O.ll Rule 2 of CPC is dirccted securing an exhaustion ol thc relief in respect ol'a cause of action and not to the inclusion in one and thc sanre action of different causes of action, even though thel' may' arise from the same transaction. Cause o[ action in both tlrc suits rnust in substance be identical, bar of subsequent suit in respect of any of reliefs pertaining to same cause ol action which had been omitted in previous suit. Provisions of O.ll Rule 2 bars the remedy of the plaintiff, therefbre, must bc l4 KL, J ( R l, \o 7l7ll of 2025 strictly construed. Therefore, it is not the duty of the trial Court to go into the merits of the case at tl.re admission stage. It shall consider the contents of the plaint and docurrrents filed along with the plaint.

25. If the suit filed by petitioners is otherwise in order like payment of Court fee, documents, signaturcs etc., the learned trial Court has to entertair.t and ttLtmber it. On issuance of notice, if defendants files an application under Order Vlt Rule I I of C.P.C., it is for the learned trial Court to consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. But trial Court cannot reject the plaint at SR stage going into rnerits of the case on its own. Thus, the impugned ordcr is illegal and contrary to the procedure under law laid down by the Apex Court.

26. In the light of the same, this Civit Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in O.S.(C.F.)No.2551 of 2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Further, learned Principal Scnior Judge, 15 L F I\0'l/8,) (I-. J 2O2l Karirnnagar, is directed to cntertain the suit, if tl.re same is othern,ise in ordcr. Conscquerrtlv, rttiscellaneous applications. il an) pendirtg, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY REGISTRAR AS SI TANT J N \j SECTION OFFICER / //TRUE COPY// \ To, '1 . The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, 2. Principal Senior Civil .luOge ii Karimnagar 3 One CC to SRt N LAXMAN Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SS/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0 410712025 ORDER GRP.No.2178 of 2025 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS ,--/= _:'=- * 1nL Aic SOJIJI M s 'l:t o.c o4 16 3l:il