The High Court · 2025

Petition utrder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitio.r, tt e High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in O.S.No.23 of 2O24on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil ludg;e sangareddy pending disposal of the present c.R.p. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Pradeep Reddy. Counsel for the Respondenb : Sri Paravastu Krishna. The Court made the following: ORDER 3 sn,i HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: HeardSriResuMahenderReddy,learnedsenior designated counsel representing sri K'Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, sri Paravastu Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 8 and sri M.srikanth Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the resPondent No.13.

2.ThisCivilRevisionPetitionispreferredaggrieved againsttheorder,dated30.lo.2o24passedinI.a.No.449 ol 2O24 in O.S.No.23 ot 2024'

3.Thepetitionerhereininthepresentc.R.P.is defendant No.6 in the suit o.s.No.23 0t 2024 0n the file of the III Addl.Junior civil Judge, sangareddy District at Sangareddyrwhichhadbeenfiledbytherespondent Nos.1 to 8 herein in the presEnt c.R.P. seeking relief of declaration of title and Recovery of possession of all that the land bearing sy.No.27, admeasuring Ac.2-15 guntas situated at chetlapotharam village, Jinnaram Mandal, / i I ! I I I I I I ! I I ! I ! : I I I I I n 4 Sangareddy Distract. In the said suit O.S.No.23 ol 2024, f.A.No.449 ol 2OZ4 had been filed by the petitioner herein/ defendant No.G thereunder seeking prayer as under:-

14. From the above averments, it is clearly evident that t:he plaint filed by the plaintiffs does not disciose any cause of action that accrued to them enabling to seek the reliefs siought by them and that the suit is clearly barred by law ;rs this Learned Court has been expressly barred from clealing with the affairs falling within the scope and ambit cf .Tenancy Act. In para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed that in W.p.No.14685 of 2023 filed by them against the Endorsement No. CIltg3T/2Ot6 dated 10.03.2022 issued by the Defendant No.2, the Hon,bte High C-ourt was pleased to direct them to approach civil crturt for alternative remedial measures available under law. However, From a perusal of the said order, it is clearly e'rident that the Plaintiffs themselves sought permission to pursue alternative remedies available under law and the Hr:n'ble High Court granted them such leave and there is n<l reference relegation of the plaintiffs to Civil Court. The Pl,:intiffs, by deliberately misinterpreting the said order, h;rve filed the present false and speculative suit. Any allotments made by TSIIC Ltd. to the petitioner could be challenged only before the Government or the Hon,ble High Ccurt but not before this Learned Court for the reasons st.rted supra. It is settled principal of law that any amount of clever drafting cannot confer cause of action on a person who did not accrue it and the vexatious plaints of the present nature shall be nipped of the budding stage itself. Thr-.refore, viewing from any angle, the plaini fiteO by the ?|9!l!iff: is squarely covered by Order VII Rutes 11(a) & 11td) of CPC and as such.the same is liable to be rejected. Otherwise, it would not only waste the valuable time of the Hon'ble Court as well as of the Defendants but it would also result in grave miscarriage of justice 5 5n,J {. The learnecl senior desiqnatecl counsel appearino on following submissions:- In the affidavit fited in support of I.A.No.449 of 2024 i) in o.s.No.23 of 2024 at para Nos.7 to 11 specific pleas pertaining to cause of action had been raised and it had been contended by the petitioner herein that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and further, at para Nos.12 to 14 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.449 of 2024 in O.S.No.23 ot 2O24 specific legal plea that the plaint is barred by law had been raised by the petitioner herein. ii). In so far as the pleas that the plaint does not disclose the cause of actaon is concerned, the III Additional Civil Judge, Sangareddy at para No.24 of the order, dated 30.10.2024 in I.A.No.449 ot 2024 in O.s.No.23 of 2O24 held as under:- " 24. As the cause of action is a bundle of facts and a mixed question of fact and law, which needs to be proved by leading required evidence and that required full-fledged trial. It cannot summarily be decided at this stage. I I f. I T 6 And in so far as the pleadings pertaining to the plaint being barred by law is concerned, there is no clear finding arriVed at all. iii) lt bare perusal of the plaint indicaies that the same does not disclose a cause of action and that the same is barred by law. Respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein in the present C.R.P. as per averments in the plaint in suit O.S.No.23 ol 2024 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, claim title in respect of the suit schedule property from one Sra Agraram Ramaiah who is allegecl to be protected tenant of the suit schedule property and it is admitted by the respondent Nos.1 to I herein in their plaint that they have not been granted with 38-E certificate in respect of suat schedule property as on date, as such they do not have any right over the suit schedule property and suit for title is bad in law and is liable to be dismissed. iv) In view of the clear admission of the respondent Nos.l to 8 herein in plaint that they do not possess a 38-E certificate in respect of the suit schedule property, no ownership or right accrues to them under the Tenancy 7 Sn,, Act, as such, no cause of action accrued to respondent Nos.1 to 8, who have filed the suit O.S.No.23 of 2024 tor declaration of title under Section 99 of the Tenancy Act. The suit is barred by law, and the remedy available to the respondent Nos.1 to 8 who are claiming to be protected tenants in respect of suit schedule property is to approach the competent Authority as per Tenancy Act seeking conferment of ownership in respect of suit schedule property. v) The Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely bared by law in matters pertaining to conferment of ownership under the protected tenancy in view of Section 99 of the Tenancy Act and hence, the suit is barred by law and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. vi) The respondent Nos.l to 8 claiming to be legal heirs of protected tenants in respect of the suit schedule property, are seeking recovery of possession, but the plaint however is silent and does not explain their alleged dispossession from the subject property nor does it indicate any cause of action in the entire plaint pertaining. to the said issue. / / ''l 8 vii) The order of the Court passed in W.p.No.14865 of 2023 had been misinterpreted, and the averments made in the plaint had been totalty ignored. r-l 1 P

6. A lrare perusat of the order impugned, dated 30.10.20:14 passed in LA.No.449 ot 2024 in O.S.No.23 of 2024 clearly indicates that the specific pleas put-forth by the petitioner herein in the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A.No.449 oJ 2024 in O.S.No.23 ot 2O24 pertaining to cause of iiction at para Nos.7 to 11 raasing the primary plea that the plaint does not disctose cause of action and further, the averments at para Nos.12 to 14 contending that the plaint is barred by law on the ground that the I I I i 9 sn,i Sections 90 & 91 of the Tenancy Act clearly avoids conferring jurisdiction of the Civil Courts had neither been discussed nor answered in the order impugned, dated 30.10.2024 in I.A.No.449 ol 2024 in O.S.No.23 of 2024, particularly in so far as the observations pertaining to cause of action at para No.24 of the order, dated

30.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.449 of 2024 in O.S.No.23 of 2024 impugned in the present C.R.P, it is merely observed therein that the cause of action is a bundte of facts and a mixed question of fact and law, which needs to be proved by leading required evidence and that required full- fledged trial and it cannot be summarily be decided at this stage.

7. This Court opines that a duty is cast upon the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law, in fact Order VII Rule 11 of CPC clearly mandates that- when the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. <_ ( I 10

8. fn the iudoment of the E-l rm -it Kumar Ja an and others, da

21.o9.2O21 an Civi! Aooeal It will be a waste of time, money and Cx€tgisC-i!-lulitibt. enr:rgy for both the plaintiffs and the defendants as well as unnecessary consumption of Court's time. It will not be fair to cornpel the defendants to go through the ordinarily long drawn prccess of trial of a suit at huge expense, not to speak of the an):iety and unpeace of mind caused by a litigation hanging over one's head like the Damocles's sword. No purpose will be served by allowlng the suit to proceed to trial since the prayers as frarned cannot be allowed on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiffs have not prayed for leave to amend the plaint. When the court is of the view just by reading the plaint alorre and assuming the averments made in the plaint to be coffect that none of the reliefs claimed can be granted in law sin(:e the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim such reliefs, the Court should reject the plaint as disclosing no cause of action. not be alive to oo to trial....."

9. Ther reliefs claimed in a plaint flow from and are the culmination of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint. Therefor,e, this Court opines that the reasoning at para No.24 of the order impugned that the cause of action is a 11 sn,i bundle of facts, which needs to be proved by leading required evidence and that required full-fledged trial is contrary to the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above).

23.L. 23.2, 23.4. 23.5. 23.6. 23.8. 23.9, 23.LL. 23.t3. hereunder:-

23.1 we will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Qrd_er_VII_BulC-LL_ePe, which reads as under: "11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: - G) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed in undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate;- (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9 Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevent by any cause of exceptional nature for correction the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to 12 Sn,i extend :;uch time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff' " (emphasis supplied)

23.2 Thre remedY under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent Court is empowered to and spr:cial remedY, wherein the summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without Proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidencr: adduced, af it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision' 23.3. "]'he underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 1l (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessaraly protract the proceedings in the suit' in such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted". 23.4 ln Azhar Hussain v. Raiiv Gandhi reported in (1986) SCC whole purpose of Supp SCc 315 this Court held that the is to ensure that a conferment of powers under this provision to prove abortive, litigation which is meaningless, and bound me of the court, in should not be permitted to waste judiciat ti the following words : " 12:. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to en:;ure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prcve abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the . bourt, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Darocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not dis,:lose any cause of action. "

23.5 Th: power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 a-e required to be strictly adhered to. 23.6 Urrder Order VII Rule 11, a duty is Gast on the court to determirxe whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by the plaint, read in conjunction scrutinizing the averments n, or whether the suit is barred with the documents relied u by any !aw.

23.8 Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC. the documents filed alongwith thL plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for' deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a)' When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the ' plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 13 sn,i

23.9 In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.

23.tL The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entiretY, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, wquld -the same result in a dicree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success I &Anr., which reads as: "139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."

23.L2 In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.5 the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact.

23.13 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the. suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

23.L4 The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain (supra).

23.15 The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. tt states that the plaint 'shalt- be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint. I 'i"\. l4 l"mi^i6.1 v C D:rnrlu richn: T

24. "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of materi;al facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit. 24.1 . In held : this Court ":24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an o'der to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law a1:plicable to them gives the plaintlff a right to relief against the dr:fendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can p{)ssibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of tl-e right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded" (emphasis supplied) T Ariv andandam v

24.2 Irt T.V. Satva na I th is court held that whlle considering an application under Order V-ll-_.rRUlC__[.L_]lp!l what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something pur:ely illusory, in the following words : - & Anr. "5. ...The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a m,:aningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disctosing a clear rig ht to sue, he should exercise his power under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a ca Jse of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing ...,, (ernphasis supplied )

24.3 :;ubsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recoverv Appellate Tribunal. this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right mus;t be made out in the plaint.

24.4 lf, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus I itigation will end at the earliest stage.The Court must be vigilant against any cam suppression, and determine whether the titigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court. 28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of punjab v. Gurdev Singh. reported in (1991) 4 SCC f held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the 15 5n,i plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. under:-

16. Learned counsel for defendants No. 1 to 3 states that the plaint fails to state any cause of action. It is stated that the common ancestor of the defendants and the plaintiffs Late Sh. Lal Chand Kapur died intestate admittedly way prior to commencement of the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. Unamended Section 6 will govern the situation in the present case. Section 6 of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment provided that if a male Hindu dies leaving behind a female relative in Class- I of the Schedule appended to the Act, then his interest in the coparcenery properties will devolve as per the Act and not by survivorship. It is reiterated that the legal position is that if a male Hindu dies intestate with his widow or daughter surviving him, his interest in the joint family properties will devolve upon the surviving relatives in Class-I of the Schedule. The property so inherited takes the character of a self-acquired property and the joint family ceases to exist. It is reiterated that admittedly Late Sh. Lal Chand Kapur, the great grandfather of the plaintiffs died in 1984 much prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. He was survived by five daughters who are Class-I heirs under the Schedule to the Act. Therefore, by virtue of the legal position, the property even it was an HUF at the time of Shri Lal Chand Kapur, ceased to be an HUF property. Defendant No. 1 and his siblings and their mother took the property as a separate property. Therefore, the plaintiffs or even their father, namely, defendant No. 3 have no right of partition to the properties held by defendants No. 1 and 2. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of / 16 ORDER CRP.No.2210 of 2025 Allowing the C,R.P. without costs. $.