The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings O.S.No.149 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble The Principal Junior Civil J udge-Cum-J udicial Magiskate Of First Class, At Gajwel. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. Gundlapalli V S S S Sruthi Counsel for the Respondents- Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda The Court made the following: ORDER ? IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OI' ]:ELANGANA AT TIYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA T: \RTHIK CML REVISION PETITION No.3639 Ct'2025 Dated 18th December 2025 Between: Guduru Raghupathi Reddy AND Petitioner Gudoor Balwanth Reddy Respondent ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Artic .t: 227 of the Constitution of India, is filecl by the petitioner-cl: sndant seeking to set aside the order dated 22.08.2025 passecl I l, the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Mag,i.strate of F'irst Class, at Gaju,e1, in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No. t49 of 2)24. 2l Vide rmpugned order, the application filec t,y the revision petitioner-defendant by invoking Order VII Rule I I (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to re r <:t the p1a-int in O.S. No.149 ol 2024 flled by the responde I - plaintiff, was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. 2 PK, J cRP_3639_2025 i 3) Heard Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel, representing Ms.GVSS Sruthi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri srinivasa Rao Sirikonda, rearned counsel for the respondent. 4l Learned counsel tor the revision petitioner has contended that the respondent-plaintiff has approached the Court below with unclean hands and filed the suit in O.S. No.149 of 2024 even without there being arly cause of action. Further, the respondent had already filed O.S. No.105 of 2024 against one Kardadi Shobavathi for perpetual injunction in respect of survey No.3O6 for an extent of Acs. 13-35 guntas and the same is pending adjudication. But, the factum of filing of the said O.S. No.105 of 2024 is not disclosed by him in the present O.S. No.149 of 2024 and the present suit is filed to create multiple litigations. It is further contended that the pleadings in both the said suits are inconsistent with each other and the respondent-plaintiff is estopped from taking multiple views in both the suits and therefore the present suit is liable to be rejected on the said ground in view of Section 1O of the Code of Civil Procedure. l,earned coungel has further contended that in the present suit, on the one hald, the petitioner is seeking a) 3 PK, J cRP 3639 2025 declaration and consequential injunction and on he other hand he is seeking the alternative relief for recoverl of possession. Therefore, seeking two contrary prayers is no maintainable undcr the larr.. As such, the learned counsel tas contended that the respondent-plaintiff had no right to fil : the suit and therefore the revision petitioner-defendant had {i 3d the present impugned app[cation seeking rejection of the p I jnt. However, rvithout considering any of the contentions raise r, L,y the revision petitioner in proper perspective, the trial Court .r rd erroneously dismissed the i.A. Therefore, it is prayed to r loiv the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned ' :Cer. Reliance has been placed on: i) Order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Il::'b1e Supreme Couit in Civil Appeal No(s).6169/2024; i1) Shri K.Jagardm o. Bangalore Deuelopme t .t: Authoritgl; iii) Vidur Impex & Trqders Put. Lt., o. Tos t Apartments Put. Ltd.,z; iv) Judgment dated 28.1I.2023 passed by the )ivision Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.537 of 2023; v) Orderdated 14.02.2024 passedinW.p. No.2,49 of 2024; vi) Mohammq.diga Educational Societg o. u Tion of Ind,ias; '2otz SCC Online SC 1273 2 AtR 2012 SC 2925 3 LAWS {APH) 2Ot6 43O 4 PK, J cRP 3639_2025 - (P) Ltd., a Stote Ba.nk of vii) M/s.Seer,r.ax Constntction India4; viii) Order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ petition No.322212023; ix) Order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ petition No.l33O7l2024; x) Judgment dated 03.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladal<h at Srinagar in LpA No.2O/2023 c/w LPA No.46 12023; and xi) Pratap Singh Gurjar a, The State ofMadhga pradeshs. 5) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent_ptaintiff has contended that the parties are siblings ald respondent_ ptaintiff is the owner of the land in survey No.306 whereas the revision petitioner is the owner of the land in survey No.310 having acquired by virtue of gift deeds executed by their father and both the lands are situated adjoining each other. However, as the land in survey No.3O6 is divided into two parts due to passage of a road connecting two villages, taking advantage of the same and rrnder the guise of litigation in O.S. No.56/2024 filed in respect of the land in survey No.3l0, the revision 4 AIR 1992 DELHI 197 s ArR 2019 (NOC) 284 (MPG) 5 PK, J cRP 3639 2025 petitioner is also claiming the land of the responrl : at-plaintiff. It is further contended that the respondent had n: ',:r suppressed aly facts in the plaint. Absolutely there are r r merits in the application liled by the revision petitioner for - :J ection plaint. Considering the material before it, the tria-l C r r L.-t has rightly dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner and therefore it is prayed to dismiss the present Civil Revision pe i -ion. Reliance has been placed on K.Valormatht u, Kut lz,re sd.rt6 an d Dahiben a. Aruindbhai Kalganji Bhanusali (G<1 ,'a)7, 6) Tl-ris Court has taken note of the submir r icns made by respective parties and perused the material on re: r:d. 7) The revision petitioner has approached ., L,: tria_l Court seeking rejection of plaint by invoking Order VII Il rle 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 15 i of the Code of Civil procedr L r.. 8) For better adjudication of the matter, Orde- \rII Rule 1 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with ,Rej : :tion of plaint, is reproduced hereunder: 6 2025 16) ALD 83 (SCl 1 (2O2Ol 7 SCC 366 6 PK, J cRP 3639 202s 'Rejection of Plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; b) Where the relief claimed is underualued, 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 returned upon proper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be hxed by the court, fails to do so; d) Where thc suit appears from the statemen t in thc plaint to 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 8 [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 recorde{ is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusai to extend such time wouid cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.l" 9) The revision petitioner is attacking the plaint fi1ed by the respondent-plaintiff before the triai Court under Order VII 7 PK, J cRP 3639 2025 Rule 11 (a) and (d) i.e., the plaint does not discl,r e any cause of action and (2) the plaint is barred by law 10) As can be seen from the plaint, the resl r, ,ndent plaintiff has specifically pieaded that the cause of act ( rr for the suit arose on 05.03.2024 at Cheelasagar village wt r n the revision petitioner-defendant has initially hxed fencing c I r:ring the pa-rt of the land in survey No.306. In that view of thr: r ratter, the first ground urged by the revision petitioner cann,r stand to the scrutinl. of this Court 11) Further, the revision petitioner has not r l rborated as to hou, the plaint is barred by 1aw. Such plea of _ r: petitioner is not supported by any details, as rightly pointed ,rrt by the trial Court. l2l Though the learned counsel for the revisio: petitioner has strenuously contended that the respondent-plair 1 1I has filed the present suit in O.S. No.l49 of 2024 by suppress ng the factum of lrling of O. S. No. I 05 of 2024 , this Court is of t I e view that the same cannot be a ground for rejection of the pl r nt itself at the threshold ald the revision petitioner is always a, liberty to raise B PK, J cRP-3639 2025 .} the said objection during the course of trial by adducing relevant oral ald documentary evidence. In that view of the matter, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are of no avail to him. The other grounds urged by the revision petitioner also cannot be considered for rejection of plaint at the threshold. 13) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court does not find arty illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court 14) ,Therefore, the Civii Revision petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs To, //TRUE COPY// SDi. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Junior Civil J udge-Cum-J ud icia I Magistrate Of First Class, At Gajwel,(with records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. Gundlapalli V S S S Sruthi Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies )V JA,/PSL HIGH COURT DATED.18t12t2025 ORDER CRP.No.3639 of 2025 I iT o * I i il itl26 z 7 * DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION \G v