High Court · 2025

Order

The Civil Revision Petition is prefe:red by the pctitioners / defendants aggrieved by the order f :rssed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge at L. R. Naga-r, Ranga Rr:rlch' District. in I.A.No.277 of 2023 in O.S.Nori52 of 2023, <lrttc'cl 19.03.12O24, wherein, a petition hled undcr ()rder 7, Rulc I I ol CPC to reject the plaint has been dismissed ) l{r-'arrl I\{ / s. Vankina, Allu & Partners, learncd counsel for thc rer.ision p('titioners and Ms. Kanumuri Kzrlvani, learnecl counsel [or thc respondent/plaintiff. Perused the rr'<,rrd.

3. Initially. the respondent/plaintiff filed suit rn O.S.No.652 ol 2023 seekrng perpetual injunction to restrain t,le petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjol'ment ol suit schedule property i.e. land admeasuring A<'.0 12 Gts., in Sy.No.SS, situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroornargar Mandat, Ranga Reddy District bounded by North: l)efendant s lan<l, South: Neighbours house, East: 30 feet wide road. neighbours building and plaintifl's plot and West: \-\ '-'-1 .l .l Neighbours houses, without following due process of lar,r.. After filing of the said suit, the I.A under revision has been hled to reject the plaint for lack of cause of action. The case of the respondent is that there is no written agreement between the parties to the suit, no deposit or advance payment of any amount to the respondent, fixed amount of Rs.30,00O/ is paid try the respondent to the petitioners every month from the.ycar 2013 till August, 2023 without escalation and there is an alleged oral lease which is on month to month basis. 4 It is the case of the petitioners that the plaint is carefulh' drafted to create an illusion of cause of action ',r'hich needs to be nipped in the bud at the earliest. Further, accorcling to tl're petitioners, the respondent committed fraud on the Court bv suppressing the fact that the suit in O.S.No.6 14 of 2023 u,as filed on 15.O9.2023 on the fiie of the VI Additional Junior Cir.il Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Due to non sorking da,vs of Court on Saturday, Sunday and Vinayakachavithi, the matter was heard on 2O.O9.2023. When the'respondent lailed to secure ad-interim injunction from the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar on the first d.rte ol hearing ) '2O.O9.2023. said suit i.e. O.S.No.614 of 2023 has been rr ithclr:ru,rr on 21 .O9.2023. Immediately thereafte t', the present suit i.e. O.S.Nc:.652 of 2023 was filed with the szrme contents, szrm(' cau:ic of aclion, same prayer including the t-yped content on srrit valuatiorL but before a District Court. The petitjoners pleaded that the r--orrcluct of the respondent is highly ob.,:ctionable AS therc is arr atrLrse of process of the Court. It is furthr:r stated that the surt in ().S.l,Jo.6l4 of 2023 was withdrawn afle r' first date of hearing i.t:. I'-O.O9.2O23, on 21.09.2023 even bef<rre summons scre servecl c,n the petitioners. The petitioners ha;e n ithdrau,n the license to respondent to park the vehicles in r;uit schedule property rtnrl in order to circumvent said u'ithdrawal, the petit ioner I'lo.1l zrpproached the Judicial Magistrate c l' First Class, Spec'ial (Mollili') I'CR Act, Ranga Reddy District vidr: O.S.No.6l6 of 2023 arrcl the rnatter was first heard on l0.l1.2l)23. On that dar'. summor-rs in the present suit were received by ttre petitioners ancl on en<1rril.r", the objectionable acts of the resp()ndent were discovered- Sirrcr: the respondent approached the Court u'ith unclt'an h:rntl s [x. blatant abuse of process of Court, the petitioners prar ecl that the plaint be rejected. !rI-.s \l \. Fr----t I (r J The respondent herein opposed the l.A den,ving the averments of the petition alleging that cause of action is mixed question of law and facts and until an<l unless the evicler-rce is adduced by all the partis to the suit, the cause of action cannot be decided. As per counter affidavit in I.A.No. 175 of 2023, there is arl attempt of forcible dispossession. Withdrawal o[ a prior suit is not a ground to reject the plaint and supprcssion of said fa<:t is ground for dismissal of the temporary injunction application but not rejection of plaint. It is admitted that the suit scheclule propcrtv belongs to the petitioners but the rcsponclent is 1;:rr''ing Rs.3O,OOO/- per month on the basis of oral tenancy. Thcre is an interference by the petitioners and therefore, the suit for perpetual injunction was filed. According to respondent, uporl firling of O.S.No.614 of 2023, one of the mediator promised that he wiii get the matter settled only on withdrau,al of the suit and basing on the assurance given by the mediator, the responclent herein has withdrawn the suit and when there was an attempt to clispossess the respondent, a fresh suit is filecl. 'l'he respon<lent denied having license to use the propert.y of the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 filed O.S.No.661 of 2023 against the respondent on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special ---a /t ::7:: (Molrilr') PrjR \ct. Ilar-rga Recldv District cum-lV Adc.. Junior Civil Juclge for perpctrrzrl ir-rjunction alleging that he is in possession of the propertr, zrn<l I.A.No.146 of 2023 is hled for grant of temporary injurrction restrarining the respondent from interlering u.ith the allegecl possesslon. Said application was dismisserl on contest. Such allegations arc of relevance in dismissal of an Interlocutory Application filcrl seeking temporary injunction but not rejection of plaint. As such, sorrght dismissal of the petition.

6. On consiclering the case of both the partie:i, the iearned Trial Court held that petition filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) ol CPC is liable to be dismissed when the plaint does not disclose cause of action but there is a paragraph which discloses cause of action and clause (d) of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC u'ould indicate that the plaint is liable to be rejected when the suit- is barred by any las,. It is held that the provisions themselves indicate that the plaint is sought to be rejected for illusory cause of action and the said fact cannot lre decided at the initial stage ol the suit. The case of respondent about hling of O.S.No.61 4 of )O23 and its withdrau'al or-r assLlrance given by the mediator and taking advantage of the same, t{r,ing to dispossess the respondent from v--.1 -I .i the suit schedule property are facts which are not mentioned in the plaint, whereas the contents of the plaint alone have to be consiclered for rejection of plaint. Reference is made to the judgment of this Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (deadf by LRS v. Jagannath (Dead| by Lrs. and others {1994 (2f Civil Court Cases 131 (SCl), wherein, it is held that a litigant is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the iitigation and if he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side, then he ,n ould be guilty ol playing lraud on the Court as well as on the opposite part-r'. Basing on the said judgment, the learned Trial Court held that such is not the case ofthe revision petitioners herein. lt is further hetd that contents of pleadings of both the parties cannot be considered at that stage and it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent suppressed any material fact or document except the non -disclosure of filing of earlier suit. I r-r the earlier suit, the injunction application was not dismissed or rejected. Therefore, held that the suit is not liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 1 I of CPC. Aggrieved by the said hnding, the present Civil Revision petition is preferred. 9

7. ln grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the learned 'lrial Court erred in no1 appreciating that a meaningful reading of the plaint needs to be cndeavored and not just plain reading of the plaint to ensure no mischief is committed by skillful drafting. Further, there is an error in holding that suppression of material fact is not abuse of process of lau, which falls under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC. 'l'he filing of prior suit is not disputed by the respondent but an explanation is given in the counter. The two suits are hled u,ith the same cause of action arrd even after stating thr: same, the said fact is not appreciated. The petitioners pleaded that the contents of the plaint reveal that the lease is oral on month to month basis and there is a demand for vacating the property since June, 2023. tn a suit for eviction on the basis of oral lease, notict: period of 15 days is suflicient ancl in the instant case, the clemand u,as made in the month of June, 2023 and th'e suit was filed after expirl'of three months and therefore, there is no cause of action for hling the suit. The respon dent did not mention filing of prior suit and withdrawal on account of mediator assurance and saict version is a blatant- falsitv and therefore, t he suit is liable to be rejected. :: l0: : j

8. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is absolutely no cause of action for filing the suit for the simple reason that the tenancy is oral as per the admission of respondent and mere 15 days notice is sufficient for causing eviction. In the instant case, when the plaint is perused, it discloses that the cause of action is based on oral lease between the parties for parking of vehicles in an open place abutting a cinema theatre. As per law, under Section 1O6 ol Transfer of Property Act, whenever the property is rented on the basis of oral lease, the notice period is 15 days only. That being the case, in the instant case, the plaint itself reveals that a demand rvas made by the petitioners to the respondent to vacate the suit schedule property in the month of June, 2023. The respondent ought to have vacated the suit schedule propertv within 15 days from the date of demand for vacating the property. Instead, the respondent continued to over stay even after the expiry of notice period and then approached the Court for grant of perpetual injunction on 15.O9.2023 by frling O.S.No.6l4 of 2023 on the hle of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. These facts give rise to an inference that there is an illusory cause of action created when there was aEl'E-.-.--_--- t - ::ll:: no legal right to continue to use the suit schedule properfy by the respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners fttrther argues that the allegation of interference is pleaded by the respondent without producing any iota of evidence. In O.S.No.6l4 of 2023, the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Red,1v District at L.B.Nagar ordered urgenl r'toticc on 15.09.2023 upon presentation of the suit and posted the matter on 17.10.2023. Reference is made to the clocket order dated 15.09.2023 in I.A.No.131 of 20'23 in O.S.No.614 ot 2023, r.r,hich reacls thus: "Heard the lcarned r:ounsel for rhe petitioner. Perused the recortl. Admittcdly. the petition schedule pr()perty bekrngs to the respondent. The petitioner has not been able to prove a prima lacie casc in its favour as n() rent agreement has been filccl to shorv that the petitioner is a lawful tena.rt of the respondents. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie casc dispcnsing .*'ith urgent noti( e to the other side is not m.rde out and hence. this Court is not inclined to grant ar Ad'lr-rtcrim injunction agzrinst the respondents. Hence, issuc urgent notice to respondent Nos. 1 iurd 2. Cal[ on I 7. 10,2023,"

10. The learncd counsel for the petitioners further argues that ir memo datecl 21 .O9.2O23 in O.S.No.6l 4 of 2023 is hled by : i 12:: l the respondent to settle the matter by mutual settlement ll,hereir-r withdrawal ol the suit is a pre condition. The said memo u,as filed along with a petition under Rule 109(2) of Civil Rules of Practice to advance the suit from i7.lO.2O23 to 21.09.2023. Reference is made to the docket orcler dated 21.O9.2023, which reads thus "Petition U/R. l09(2) CRP filed by petitioner/ plaintiff praying to advance the date of hearing from 17.1O.2O23 to today for withdrawing suit. Defendants not yet appeared- Allowed.- 1 1. It is flrther argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners the-rt by w.ithdrawing the said suit on 21.09.2023, on the verv same da\,. the Court fee is paid afresh bv the respondent for lrling the present suit in O.S.No.652 o{ 2023 before the [I[ Additional Junior Civil .Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Redd1,'District Therefore, the saicl suit is liable to be rejected as there is r-ro cause of action.

12. The learned coun sel for respondent submitted tl-rat t he cause of action is clisclosed in the plaint and therefore, t.here is no ground for rejection of the plaint on the said count. With respect to committing fraud or abusing the Court process, said ::l-l:: allegations ar(: denied alleging that in case, there is any flaw in the conduct of the respondent, the same mav result in rejection of temporary injunction but cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. It rs argued that cause of action is a bundle of facts which has to be ascertained b-y reading the plaint .:.verments in its totality and the plaint discloses a cause of action.

13. Furtht'r, the learned counscl for respondent referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of [ndia in case betrveen Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and others v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V.Fortune Express and othersr lirr the proposition that a plaint cannot be rejected on the basis o[ aller;;rtions made by the deferrdant in his written statement. The issue of n,hether a plaint discloses cause ol action requircs cleterminrrtion by the Court and the opinion of the judge that the plaintiff may not succeed, cannot be ground for rejection ol the pla nt. Further, t reference is m;rde to judgment ol the Hon'ble Suprerne Court of lr-rclia in cast' lretr.r'een Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limitedz. rt'hercin, it is held that cause of zrction for the purpose Order 2 Rtrle 2 ol CPC rvould ' AIR 2006 Suprerne Court 1828 'AIR 2025 Suprerne Court 849 :: l -l: : ...l mean cause of action s'hich gives occasion for and forms foundation of suit. When said cause of action enabies a person to seek larger and wider relief than that to which he limits his claim, he cannot be permitted to recover balance reliefs through independent proceedings afteru,ards. It is also held that plaint has to be read as a u'hole to dcterminc applicability of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC for thc purposc of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 1 1(d) of CPC.

14. This Court is conscious of the fact that contents of plaint and the documents liled along r'r,ith the plaint alone are to be considered while considering rcjection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In the instant case, the contents of the plaint and receipt of payment of Court fee for suit in O.S.No.652 of 2023 on 2l .O9.2O23 are considered along u'ith admission of hling of O.S.No.614 of 20'23 on 15.O9.20'23 and its withdrawal on

21.O9.2023. The hling of tu'o suits u'ithin a span ol seven davs, payment of court fee on very same tlar. of n ithdrau,al of lirst suit to file a second suit are considerecl. 'l'his Court did not peruse pleadings of written statement or anv other ciocuments filed by the respondents :: l5::

15. To ascertain whether there fraud yrla1'ed on the "vas Court or rvhether there is abuse of process ol Court or creation of illusor.r' cause of action, the sequence of events have to be examined closelv. The first and foremost point to be considered is thal lhe suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 was pres:nted b1, the respondent on '15.O9.2023 before the VI Acldl. Junir,r Civil Judge, Ranga Recldv District at L.B.Nagar along s'ith I.A.\,--.131 of 2023 seeking temporan' injunction, rvherein, urgent notrc: u'as ordered cleclining to grant ad-interim injunction on the grorrnd of lack of prima lacie case and posted the matter on 17.1O.2023. Thereafter, on 2l .O9 .2023, a petition u'as filed under Rule 109(2) of CRP to advirnr:e the matter from 17.lO.2O23 to '2' .O9.2O23 for u'ithclrau,ing the suit. The ostensible purpose for rvit-rdrau'ing the suit irr O.S.No.6l4 of 2023 is mutual settlemer-rt lreni'een the parties rn,ith a prc-condition to'*,ithdrau' the suit. Th:re is a need to pause at this stage to ponder as to hon, the petitioners could have imposed rr pre-condition for mutual settlement lr'hen notice in the suit wzrs not even served on them. Without serving of noticc in the sr-rit and lvithout appearance of the petitroners in the suit n hich is evident from the docket order clated '.'. | .O9 .2023, there can be rro ground to believe imposition of a pr^e-condition :: I 6:: ..1 for withdrawal of the suit for the purpose of arriving at mutual consent. This is the first lacuna rvhich gives rise to a serious doubt that the respondent has approached the Court with unclean hands.

16. The next instance to be considered is that when the suit is withdrawn on 21.O9.2O23 ostensibly for the purpose of mutual settlement on account of a mediator approaching the respondent on behalf of the petitioners, u,h-v there is a need to pay Court fee by the respondent on the very same da-v for the purpose of filing the second suit i.e. O.S.No.652 ol'2023. tt is difficult to conceive of a fact situation where a petition is filed under Rule 109(2) of CRP before 12 Noon on 21.09.2023 to move an out of order and said petition would be adjudicated and put up at around 4 pm. or thereafter in the normal course. The suit is witl'rdrawn between 4 and 5 pm ostensibly for mutual settlement, u,'herein, withdrawal of a suit is a pre-condition. When the suit is u,ithdrawn just before closing of the Court betr.t een 4pm ancl 5pm, rvhat would be the need for payment of Court fee on the very same day. A question arises as to where was the time gap to negotiate, failure of said negotiations ar-r d fresh cause of action i.e. forcible - ril'/ti attempt to clispossess the respondent from the :;uit scheclule propert\, t<r file the second suit on 22.O9.2023 i.e. bt:fore lapse of

2.1 hours. [r'r lact, the time frame for fresh cause of irction has to be betu'eerr 5 prn on 2L.O9.2O23 to 12.00 Noon or 22.09.20'23 Betu'een ttris lime gap, there should have been a negotiation and attempted dispossession for cause of action to fil: the second strit. While so. th<' cause of action in O.S.No.652 of 2023 do not reveal anv cause' of action on 21.O9.2023 which lorrns the basis for filing the fresl-r suit on 26.09.2023 by paying (lourt fee on 2l .O9.20'23' itsell-. The cause of action paragraph in O.S.No.(>52 of 2023 reveals that the alleged cause of action arose o'.. 12.O9.2023 l)ut not 21 .O9 .2023. The aforementioned fact scenario shou,s that in al1 probabilitl , t here was no attempt for settlenrcnt bet$'ecn thc perrties :rr-rd that only lor the purpose of abusing the Cor:rt process for pr3156n31 gain, the suit in O. S. No.6 I 4 ol 2023 is rvithcirarvn bv the respondent for the purpose of filin13 a lresh suit to make a serorrrl attempt at obtaining ad-interinr injunctiorr. 'l'hus, the condu( t of the respondent shows a malafid( intention

17. In vierr of the foregoing discussion, this Corrrt is of the considered opinion that an iliusory cause of a<'tion is bv :; I ll:; employing ciever drafting for abusing the Court process lor illegal gain. The fact situation clearl.1, attracts the legal ratio lai<1 doq,n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T. Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal3, wherein, it is held as lblloi,, s: "5. We hane not thc slightest hcsitation on condemling the petitioner for t}.rc gross abusc of the process of the court repcate<.llr arrrl unrepcntzurtly rcsorted to. From the statemcnt of the lacts lound in the judgment of the High CoLlrt, i1 is per l?t:th' plain thiit thc suit now pending before thc F irst lvlLlnsifs Court, Bangalore, is a flagralt misuse of the rncrcics o[ thc larv in receiving plaints. The lcarncd Munsif must remembcr that if on a meaningful - not form:rl rcading of the plaint it is malifcstly vc-rati<.rus, arrd meritlcss. in thc sense of not disclosing aL clear right to sue. he should exercise his power undcr Order VII, Rule I l, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioncd thercin is fulfilled. And, if clevcr drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it ir.r the bucl at the first hcaring by exzrmining thc party searchinglv under ()rdcr X. C.P.C. An activist Judge is thc answcr to irrcsponsiblc larv suits. The trial Courts would insist impcrativciv on examining the party at the first hearing so th:rt boglrs litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. Thc Pena.l Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men. (Cr- XII anci must be triggered against thcm." 1B To sum up, in the instant casc, an illusorv cause of action is created in Septernber, 2023 n,hcn there was notice of te rmination of oral lease in June, 2023. Thereforc, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit is liable to be rejected under ) (1977) 4 scc 467 I I .t 7 To, 7 2 3 :: l9: : Order 7, Rule I t (a) of CPC for lack of cause of action. Next, there is an attempt ,at abuse of Court process for illegal gain. When a person appro:Lches the Court with unclean hancis, the said matt(:r has to be thrown out at the same instance as l)er the legal ratio lai<i <lorvn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T. Arivandandam case (3 supra).

19. In tlrc' result, thc Civil Revision Petition is al or.r,ed setting asidc the im;>ugned order passed by the learned III Additior-ral Junior Civil JLrdge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddv District, I.A.No.211 ol 2()23 in O.S.No.652 of 2023, dated 19.03.2O24 Consequentlv, the [.A.No.2Il of 2023 is allowed. The suit in O.S. No.652 ol' 2O23 is rejected. No costs. Cor.r seq uent11', connected miscellaneous petitions atre close<1, / /TRUECOPY// SD/_ I\. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REqISTRAR .//a- SEC IIO\(OFFICER I One lrair Copy to the Hon'ble SmtJustice Renuka yarra (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) The III Aclditio.al Ju,ior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Recidy District. 11 LR Col.ries The Under Se'crt:tary, Union of India, Ministry of Lar,v, justice a r-rtl Companv Affairs, Nen, Delhi

4. l-he secretarv, Atlvocates Association Library, High C.urt for the state of Telan_gana, I Iigh Court Builclings at Hycleratrad 9. 9". CC to i\i/s.Vankina Allu And par-tners, Aclvocate [OplJCl 6. one CC kr N[:.;. K.rnumuri Kalyani, Aclvocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies JCK/SAb / ) ( o R THe- s,4 -\' i) I t Ai ttrlu M (nr :, I!l P4t CHEO n IIIGII COURI DATED:23/10/202!i ORDER CRl'].No.2156 of 202.1 Allovving tht: C.R. p. \vithout c()sts m-r 6 \\ 6