The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/ (Petitioner/Defendant No.4) AND 1 2 3 4 ttrl/s. Kaisar & Associates, Represented by its Managing Partner, ltrlr.Kaiser, Son of S.B.Ahmed, aged about 70 years, Resident of Plot No.711, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad Ivladhuban Enterprtses, Represented by its Managing Partner, V Subba Rao, Son of late Chandraiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Busifess, resident of 10- 2-2891 1 12, Shantinagar, Hyderabad. N.Rama Krishna, Son of not known to the PIaintiff(Petitioner herein)' aged about 60 years, Occ- Business, resident of Puppalguda, Gandipet Mandal' R. R. District. Ivl/s.Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited, Office at NCC House, Madhapur' Hyderabad 'i' ...Respondents (Plaintiffs/Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 3) (The Respondents No.2 to 4 herern are shown as proforma respondents and are not necessary parties to this C. R. P) -7 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15.1 CPC praying that in the crr')Llmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m:ty be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.38 ot 2024 on the file of the Court of the principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Judicial Magisl.rate of First class, Ranga Reddy District, at Rajendranagar, pending drsposal of the C.R P Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P. Balaji Varma Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Venkat Raghu Ramulu The Court made the following: OROER II THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3775 0F 2025 Mr.P.Balaji Varma, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counscl appearing for the respondents ORDER: 1 The petitioner is the defendant No.4 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judgc, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar (Trial Court') in a Suit uide O.S.No.38 of 2024 filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff for perpetual injunction. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the I.A.No.2O9 of 2025 in O.S.No.38 of 2024. The I.A. was filed by the pe titioner/ defendant No.4 for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of The Code of Civil procedure, 1908 ('CPC] on the grounds that the plaint did not disclosa a ,cause of action' and was also barred by law as Lhe responder? Uo.l/plaintiff was attempting lo obtain an injunction basecl on a defective title.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionc r/ defendant No.4 submits that section al fi) of The Specific Relief-Acr, 1963, which provides that an injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter, constitules the .barred_by_law, component under Order VII Rule l1 (d) of the CpC. Learned counsel, \ 2 \-! however, places greater emphasis on the abserr:t: ol a ,cause of action' in the plaint.

3. Learned counsel appcaring for the petition,:r /delendant No.4 submits that the respondent No. I /plaintitf does uor possess a Sale Deed in its favour and only has a rcgistered Agrecnrcnt of Salc cum General Power of Attorney (Doc.No.4o92 of 2oo7) r.,ith the vendor in respect of the suit schedule property. Learn<.c counscl further submits tha[ the respondcnt No. 1/plaintifls v(]nd(rr i.c.. the respondent No.2 had entered into an Agreemcnr r:f Salc u,ith the original owner of the suit schedulc property, wl-rc -c.[ry a dccree for specifir: performance rvas obtained in its favour. I Icncc, thc Trial court failed to nore that the respondent No.1/plaintifl cotrld not havc main[ained the Suit due to lack of ,cause ol rrc:tio.' since the respondent No. 1 / plaintiff cannot claim ownership b:tsed solell. on an Agreement of Salt:-cum-GpA with the vendor *fr"n '11n. vcndor only possesses a dr:cree for specihc performance whir h unlike a Sale Deed, does not by itself confer title.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the responrl,.rrt N<,. l/plaintiff has also made his submissions. 3 The reasons givcn by the Trial Court in dismissing the I A 5. filed by the petitioner/ defendant No 4 for rejection of the plaint are contained in Paragraph No.lO of the impugned order' The Trial Court therein found that the petitioner/ delendant No'4's act of disputing the respondent No. 1/ plaintifls title to the suit schedule property amounts to an interference with the said property' which constituted a valid cause of action. This court does not find any error in this reasoning. Moreover, Paragraph Nos 14 and 15 of the impugned order further record that the conte ntion of the petitioner/ defendant No.4 that the plaintiff's vendor i e'' the respondent No.2 only has a decree in its favour and not a rcgistered Sale Deed in its favour so as to constitute a Valid title which can be passed on to the respondent No l/plaintiff, are questions of fact which should be adjudicated only during the course of a Trial The other contention of the pe titione r / defendant Uo 4 that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit schedule property u'as also accepted as a fact, which could not be decided in a summary proceeding, such as uncler Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

6. This Court agrees with thc reasons gi"'en by the Trial Court sincetheContentionso[thepetitionerinvolvedisputedquestionsof ( 4 - fact pcrtaining to the plaintiffs title to the suit schr clule property and as to whether lfre decree in favour of the plaintrfl,s r,endor would translate into zr righL in favour of the plaintiff to file a Suit. These are not matters u'hich can be decided in proceedings initiated under Order VII Rulc 11 of the CPC lor rejection of a plaint where the averments ma<le in the plaint are the only grounds .o bc considered b,v the Court to arrive al a conclusion. In the prescr)t case, the Trial Court rightly helcl that the disputed factual issues u,oulcl have to be decided at 'l'rial. Hence, there is no scope for in1< ri-el.cnce r.r,itl,r thc impugr-red ordc r dated 28.O7.2025. 7 . CRP. No.3775 of 2025, along with all conne:tccl ;rpplications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as t c cosjts. SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR I I' //TRUE COPY// se*roru oFFtcER The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Judic ar Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. One CC to Mr P Balaji Varma, Advocate [OPUC1 ..:' One CC to [Vlr Venkat Raghu Ramulu Advocate [OpiJC Two CD Copres To,

2. 3. 4 m,/s a aK HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 ORDER CRP.No.3775 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP 6 ,ILLLIV g\ ( Sla 14: J ) .,) 2? IiCl/ (r( a au . .. ..,