The High Court · 2025

9. Poosa Lavanya, Wife of Poosa Raju, Aged 47 years, Occupation. Household, Resident of H. No. 1-7-6311121N5, Gemini Colony, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. '10. Poosa Sunanda, Wife of Poosa Sri Krishna, Aged 55 years, Occupation. Household, Resident of H. No. 1-7-6311121N5, Gemini Colony, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners / Petitioners / Defendants 1 to 10 AND

1. Smt. G.V. Nagamani, Wife of G. Vaman Rao, (Died)

2. Sri Gattu kishan Rao, S/o Gattu Raianna Aged about 78 years, Occ. Retired Employee Resident of Ganjapadugi.t Village, Manthani Mandal Peddapalli District

3. Smt.Gattu Indrasena, W/o Kishan Rao, Aged About 74 years, Occ. House Wife, Resident of Ganjapadugu Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District ...Respondents / Respondents 2 & 3 / Plaintiffs 2 & 3

4. The Manager, State Bank of lndia, Ramnagar Branch, 1-7-6581318, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. (IFSC S8HY0020471)

5. The Manager, State Bank of lndia, Musheerabad Branch, Opp. Care Hospital, Road, Bakaram, Hyderabad, (IFSC S81N0012989)

6. The Manager, State Bank of lndia, D.D Colony Branch, Hyderabad, (tFSCSBrNoo2l 265) ...Respondents / Respondents 4 to 6 / Defendants 11 to 13 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S 18 of 201 8 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Godavarikhani Peddapalli District pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel forthe Respondent Nos 2 & 3 Counsel for the Respondent Nos 4 to 6 : : : Sri M Ram Mohan Reddy Sri G L Narasimha Rao - - - The Court made the following Order : It-- /) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON No.3211 of2024 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated )2.07.2024, passed in I.A.No.449 ot 2Ol9 in O.S.No. 18 of 2018 by the Additional Districr Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District (for short, the trial Court'). I

2. The respondent Nos.l to 3/plaintiffs have instituted suit vide O.S.No. 18 of 2018 on the hle of Additional District Juige, at Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District, against the petitioners herein/defendant Nos. 1 to 10 seeking recovery of an amount of \ Rs.3,67,92,00O/ along with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the realization. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.449 of 2Ol9 under Order VII Rule I 1(d) of CPC seeking to reject the plaint. After considering the rival submissions, the trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 22.07.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is liled.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record , 2

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated,22.07.2024 reveals that the trial Court after considering the contentions raised by both sides, dismissed the subject I.A.No.449 of 2019. paragraph 10 of the impugned order reads as follows: "1O. In the present case on hand, the grounds on uhich ttle Petitioners/ Defendants seek rejection of the plaint u_touLd be in the realm of disputed questions of facts tuhich will lnnte to be decided upon afier a full-fledged tiaJ. As sucL the grounds urged do not make out a case for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CpC. Moreouer, q bundle of facts tlhich wilL haue to be estqbtished bA the plaintiffs in q triqt ond. that the question of the plaint is barred bg latu is a mixed question of fact and laLu u.thich can onlg be decid.ed afi.er a fulLfledged tiat and the plaintilf cnnnot be non suited. on such ground_ utithout a tiaL Therefore, the present application Ord.er 7 Rule 1 1 (d) of CPC is not maintainable and it is liabte. to be dismrssed and the decision relied by the petitioners/ Defendant No-l to 1O is not applicable to the present case on h<tnd.".

5. It is settled principle of law that the Court is competent to reject a plaint at any stage of proceeding if it finds that conditions under Order VII Rule I i ol CpC exist. The Court cannot take into account the materials beyond the plaint to declare the case of the plaintiffs as frivolous and vexatious. While considering the application filed under WI Rule 1 I of CPC, the Court is not required to take into consideration the defence set up by the delendant in the written statement. The I I I 7 3 question whether the plaint discloses any cause of action is to be decided by looking at the averments contained in the plaint itself but not the defence set up in the written statement. While examining the said issues, the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiffs should not be seen. In order to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. If the aliegations are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear .igtri to material(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial Court to exercise its power under Order VII Rule 1 I of CPC. Merely because the cause of action in the plaint is vague and incomplete it is not a ground for rejection of the plaint. It is settled principle of 1aw that there is a difference between non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint and the absence of cause of action for the suit. The ground for rejection of plaint is failure to disclose a cause of action and not that there is no cause of action Ior the suit. It is not competent for the Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations constituting the cause of action and the same is beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 1 1 of CPC. What is required to be disclosed by the plaintiff is a clear right 4 to sue and failure to do so must necessarily entail in rejection of the plaint

6. In Saleem Bhai as. State of Maharashtrat, the Hontrle Supreme Court observed as follows: '9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule j l CpC makes it clear that the releuant facts uthich need_ to. be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the auerments in" the plaint. The tial court can exercise the power und.er Ord.er 7 Rule 1 I CpC at^ ang stage of the suit _ before registering the plaint or after bsuing summons to,the defendint at inu time before the conc.lusion of the tial. For the purposes oj a_eciding an applicatton under clauses (a) and @) oy n"U i I of Orier 7 CPC, the auerments in the plaint ori g"rrnon ; the pleas. taken bA the defendant in the u.titten itatement uould be uthollg irreleuant at that,stage, therefore, a clirection to file the tuitten statement u.tithoui d.ecid_iig the application under Order 7 Rule 1 I CpC cannot but be"procediral [negulaitg touching the exercise of juri_sdiction bg the tial court." In Jageshuari Devi a. Shatr:alghan Ram2, the Hon,ble

7. Supreme Court observed as follows: "3. We haue heard leamed counsel for the parties. We haue l:-l].:.d the order of the trial court and oJ the Hiqh Court. We haue also perused- the plaint filed bg the respondent herein. The main ground on u,,tLiclt rejec'tion of tie plaint was sought uas that the pLaint does not disclose a cause of action which i_s a ground specifted, under Ord,er 7 Rule 1 1(a) CPC. The tiat court on mnsiieration of the auerrnents i_n the plaint held, and_ in our uieuL nghtlg, ihat it could. not be held that the plaint does not d.isclosJ a cause of action. It is releuant to state that there ts a d.i"fference betueen the noi-discLosure of o cause of action "ia a.y""tii. cause oJ- action: tuhile the former comes within the iape of Order 7 Rule 11, the latter is to be decid.ed duing trial oi the suit. The contention rai.sed. on behalf of the ippeltant that the cause of action disclosed is uague and iniomplete, s not a ' (2003) I scc 557 ' (2007) 15 SCC S) I 5 B ^. ground for rejection of the b ec 3greement were defendant Nos. I L*npttii,';;L : ;: {:: ;r,,i.T.L !,o* 7 Rure I I In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioners/ to lO that certain payments made under the not accounted for in the suit for recovery. However, apart from this assertion, they have not demonstrated any specific ground under Order VII Rule 11 of CpC that would warran t rejection of the plaint. It is settled law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 1 1 of CpC, the Court is required to examine only the averments in the plgint but not the defence set up by the defendants. The existence or non-existence of a cause of action must be determined based on the plaint itself, without reference to any disputed factual issues that require trial. The trial Court, after considering the various judgments and the legal position, rightly concluded that the grounds raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 1 I of CpC. The correctness or otherwise of the claims made in the ptaint is a matter to be examined in the course of trial but not at the threshold stage. As the case set up by the petitioners does not lall within the grounds specified under Order VII Rule I 1 of CpC, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. Further, the I I 6 supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to ensuring that the subordinate courts function within the bounds of their jurisdiction and do not commit manifest errors of law. Interference is warranted only when there is a patent illegality or jurisdictional error' In the present case, no such error is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed' However, it is left open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds in the pending suit, in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending' if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District 2. One CC to Sri M Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri G L Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VA Y*- I HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 \ \ t ORDER CRP.No.3211 of 2OZ4 () k l iiF- t.4 ,(. L:.: 2 0 rrB 2025 t pATClr / DISMISSING THE CRP co@ Y't [6[aTas