The High Court · 2025

2. Sri.Nukala Abhishikth, S/o late Nukala Satyanarayana, Occu: business, Age: 25 Years, R/o Plot No.3-7-200l1I0, Mansodrabad,'L.B. Nagar, Hyderabdd.- 3. Sri Nukala Vishwajith, S_/o late Nukala Satyanarayana, Occu: Studenl, Age 22 Years, R/o Plot No.3-7-200l110, Mansoordbad, L:8. Nagar, Hyderabail. - ,..Petitioners/Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 AND 1 Kanamoni Raju, S/o Kanamoni Ramulu, Age: 30 yrs., Occu: business, R/o Shakapur village, Pangal Mandal, Wanapa-rthy DLtrict. 2 Sri Katamoni Ramesh Goud, S/o late Katamoni pakeeraiah, Occu: business, R/o. H.No.7-67, Balijapalli village, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District. ...First RespondenUPlaintiff ...Second RespondenUFirst Defendant IANO:1O F 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 in o.s.No.5 12020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition Gounsel for t:he Petitioners : Sri Nagaraju Yanamandra Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER ['i |TIG'I] FOR THE STATE OT' AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI(ANTI 18 Betweeen: DATE ORDER 15.

1. Smt Nukala Suvarchana W/o Late Nunala Sathyanarayana and2 others And

1. Kanamoni Raju S/o Kanamoni Ramulu Age and 1 other. petitioners ...respondents ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed with the following prayer: ' "...to set aside the Order in I.A.No.43/ 2024 in O.S.No.S/2O2O dated 2t /08l2O2S passed by the Honourable District and Sessions Judge, wanaparthy in order to reject the plaint in os.No.S l2o2o considering to be barred by law and pass...,,

2. Heard Mr. Yanamandra Nagaraju, learned counsel for petitioners.

3. I.A.No.43 of 2024 came to be filed before the trial court i.e., Principal District Judge, wanaparthy, by defendant Nos.2 to 4 (in the suit). \ 2 JAK,J crp-45182{J25 I.A.No.43 of 2024 is a petition to reject the plaint under

4. Order V,l Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ,cPC). Tre petition calne to be filed after a lapse of 5 years.

5. Leetrned counsel for revision petitioners submitted that the suit is a pre-mature suit and that an agreement of sale is dated 05.10.2019 purported to be executed by respondent No.2, cannot be admitted in evidence. It is submitted that unstamped/unregistered document cannot be taken on record and be admitted in evid.ence as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. That the section rnakes it mandatory that docrrment has to be registered. It is further submitted that there is tro whisper about petitioners i.e., defendant Nos'2 to 4 in o.S.No.S of 2O2O. That plaintiff paid part sale consideration of Rs.2O00,oo0/- to d.efendant No.1 i.e., Katamoni Ramesh Goud, ar d that he promised to register the said suit schedule property in favour of Plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel subnnitted that the suit being a pre- mature srlit, revision petition needs to be allowed and 9 months time was fixed for the perforrnance of agreement of sale. It is aiso subrritted that plaintttf !4 10 days time and he filed suit I / 1i JAK,J crp_4518]025 for specific performance much prior to the time fixed in the 3 agreement of sale, that there is no privity of contract with defendant Nos.2 to 4 and there is no role of defendant Nos.2 to 4.

7. Be that as it *oy, learned counsel was asked to demonstrate the illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Principal District Judge in I.A.No.43 of 2024. Learned counsel reiterated the submissions made as extracted supra, counsel stated that the learned Judge fell into error in taking on record the pre-mature suit and proceeding with trial of the suit.

8. Petition to reject the plaint under order vll Rule 11 of cPC can be filed at any stage of suit before framing of issues and that petitioners herein (defendant Nos.2 to 4) ca.me up with the present petition when they were due for cross examination, that too after a lapse of 5 years. It is observed by the triat Judge that the procedure adopted by petitioners herein are only to procrastinate the suit by filing the petition with an intention to delay, the proceedings, (delay tactics).

9. It is a well-settled proposition of law that while considering an application or petition under order VII Rule 11 : I i ,i I I I I i JAK,J crp_4518_2025 of CPC, the trial Court has to see whether the piaint discloses 4 cause of action or not, whether it is a valid cause of action. Wher-r the Court is of the opinion that the criteria prescribed under Order VII Rule 1 1 of CPC are met '*,ith, then the Court is obligated to entertain the application. While doing so, the trial Court is to look into the documents annexed along with the plaint, the plaint averments, nothing more rlothing less. Even a peep into the documents or to the averments of the written statement vvould render the order of trial Court under a cloud. The Court found that there was no appropriate cause of action, and did not entertain the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Tht: relevant portion of the order of learned Principal District J -rdge is as follows: "xiv Admittedty, the suit is frled in the year 2O2O and the defendant rro.2 to 4 have filed their written statement cn 24.O9.2020 taking all the defences available to them. xv. Apart from challenging the documents of the plaintiff, on one hand the petitioners plead that the suit is premature and on the other hand they plead that the suit i:; bar-red by limitation. xvi. A petition to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C:.P.C. can be Iiled at any stage of the suit before framing the issues and the defendants nos.2 to 4 has come up u'ith the present petition when they were due for cross eramination of the plaintiff and after lapse of five years u'hich shows that it is nothing but delay tactics' x,zii. The law is well settled that the court has to see whether the plaint discloses the cause of action or not, ard the aspect whether it is a valid cause of action or nrt, is not required while considering the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. 5 JAK,J crp_4518 2025 xviii. Further the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or an application for rejection of the Plaint. It is the duty of the court to read the entire plaint as a whole to frnd out whether it discloses the cause of action and essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the bases of averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. xix. Finally, as long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the court, the court cannot reject the plaint on flimsy grounds raised by the petitioner." This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order in I.A.No.43 of 2024 in O.S.No.S of 2O2O dated 2L.O8.2O25. 1O. Having perused the contents of the order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of Principal District Judge does, hot suffer from any infirmity. 1 1. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REG //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To

1. The Principal District and Sessions J 2. One CC to Sri Nagaraju yanamandra, 3. Two CD Copies udge, Wanaparthy Advocate [OPUC] d I ,; t I ;il I ,1, : i I t ! t tt. i t "l! i i I HIGH COLIRT DATED:1 5t1212025 (-) ( * intr u 7 5 ff8 2026 * ORDER CRP.No.4518 of 2O25 DISMISSING THE CRP 9A i i I lI I I I