The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR C.R.P. No.3818 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dt.24.O4.2024 in IA.No. 1026 of 2023 in OS.No.162 of 2O2O on the hle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court at Devarakonda

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perused the record

3. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the above suit hled by respondent/plaintiff. The said suit was filed lor perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners/ defendants from interferiug in any manncr with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, perpetually.

4. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array in the suit.

5. The defendants in the suit hled the underlying interlocutory application uide I.A.No.1026 of 2023 under I ! ] : iI I I I I i I I 2 Order VII Rule l1 CpC to reject the plaint in OS.No. t62 of 2O2O with exemplary costs, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action basing on the pleadings and documents; and that the plaintiff is claiming the suit schedule land on the basis of a Will Deed without filling the said document to show as to when the said Will Deed was executed.

6. The defendants further claim that the plaintiff had filed the suit by resorting to suppression and misrepresentation of fact of the interim injunction obtained by him in [A.No.l51O of 2018 in OS.No.419 of 2018 dt.27 .L 1.20I8 in respect of the same suit schedule property, was set aside by the Hon,ble High Court by order dt.17.O2.2O23 in CRp.No.773 of 2022, and atso the proceeding, by which the subject land was mutated on to the name of the plaintiff was also stayed by the RDO in the appeal frled by the 4m defendant. It is also contended that as the plaintiff suppressing the RDO, had obtained ex-parte temporar5r injunction IA.No.258 of 2O2O in the underlying suit, as affirmed by said proceeding of the 1n the l"t appellate court in CMA.No. 19 of 2021, the above said orders were set aside by the Honble High Court in CRP.No.773 of 2022 by holding that the plaintiff had laited to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for being granted with an order of temporary injunction. 7 . The defendants further contend that the Court below had shut its eyes to take the above facts into consideration while considering the underlying application filed for rejection of plaint and thus failed to understand the fundamental principle of Civil Law that multipticity of Iitigation should be avoided by allowing continuation of the suit, and thus, ought to have allowed the underlying interlocutory application rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff.

8. It is also further pleaded by the defendants that the plaintil"f is claiming title and possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of a faIse, liaudulent documents and by suppressing materia-l fact as to the I i I l I I I 4 order of status quo order passed in IA.No.l51O of 2Olg in OS.No.4 19 of 20lg on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,s Court at Nalgonda, being in force. It is thus, contended that the subject matter of the suit is hit by doctrine of /ls pendence, and the Court below ought to have rejected plaint by allowing the underlying interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule I I of CpC.

9. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has placed reliaace on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of T.V.Ro,mo,krishna Reddg us. M.Mallappa & Anr.t, Kagalulta pq.rambath Moid.u a. Nambood.igil Vinodan2 and Jharkhand Storte Housing Board u. Did.ar Singh & Anr.3 Eaji

10. I have taken note of the aforesaid submissions made. I Civil Appeat No.55 77 of 2021, dt.O7.Og.2027 ' Civil Appeal Nos.S 575-5576 ot 2021, dt.O7.Og.2O2t Civil Appeat No.8241 of 2009, dt.O9.10.2018 r I 5

11. In order to appreciate the a-foresaid contentions urged on behalf of the defendants, it would be apposite to refer to the scope of Order VII Rule l1 of CPC: "77. ReJectlon of platnt- The plaint shall be rejected in the follouLing cases. - (a) where it does not discLose a cause of oction; (b) uthere the relief claimed is und.erualued, and the plaintiff, on being required bg the Court to correct th.e ualuation uithin a time to be frxed bg the Court, fails to do so; (c) uhere the relief clatmed b properly ualued., but the plaint is returned upon paper insufftcientlg stamped, and. the plointiff, on being required bg the Court to supplg the reqtisite stamp-paper utithin a tim-e to be ftxed bg th-e Court, fails to do so; (d) uhere the suit appears from the statement in the ptaint to be borued by any law : Prouided that tl,u? time fixed by tle Court for the mrrection of the ualuation or supplging of the requistte stamp-poper slwll not be ertended unless the Court, for reosons to be recorded, is sotisfied that the plaintiff uas preuented. by ang couse of an exceptional nature fonn corecting the uoluation or supplging the requisite stamp-paper , as the case mag be, within the time frxed bg the Court and that refusal to extend. such time would cause graue injustice to the plaintiff.".

12. From a readying of the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it would be clear that a plaint as presented to a Court can be rejected even at the threshold only in the circumstances mentioned thereunder. 6

13. Though on behalf of the defendants it is contended that the plaint as liled, basing on the pleadings and documents filed, does not disclose any cause of action, the Court below while considering the underl5ring application had examined the aforesaid contention of the defendants with particular reference to para Nos.4 and 5 of the plaint averments and found that the same discloses cause of action to file the suit.

14. Further, the Court below also took note of the fact that cause of action is bundle of facts and the claim of the defendants, of the plaintiff having resorted to suppression of the suits urZe OS.No. 130 of 2O lg on the frle of the Junior Civil Judge,s Court at Devarakonda and O.S.No.419 of 2O 18 on the frle of the Senior Civil Judge,s Court at Na.lgonda, had noted the contention of the plaintiff that he is not a party to the aforesaid proceedings, and the defendants having not denied the aforesaid submission of the plaintiff by liling a rejoinder thereto. ,.1 \ / ) f5. The Court below while rejecting the underlying interlocutory application further noted that it is the defendalts, who had misguided the Court by claiming that the plaintiff suppressing the pendency of O.S.No.l3O of 2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,s Court at Devarakonda, while the said suit was withdrawn on 27 .12.2OI8 by the defendants themselves as not pressed. 16 . Further, the Court below a_lso took note of the fact that the plaintiff is claiming the suit schedule properties through a Will Deed executed by his paternal uncle and the validity or otherwise of the Will can only be decided a_fter a full-fledged trial, and as such the underlying interlocutory application filed for rejection of plaint on the ground of avoidance of multiplicity of litigation, cannot be accepted.

17. Though on behalf of the defendants it was contended that the High Court having recorded a finding in CRP.No.773 of 2022 with regard to the plaintiff not establishing a pima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, it is to noted that the said f-rnding is j t I 8 applicable only ln relation to consideration of ar1 rnterlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rules I & 2 of CpC, and the same cannot be made applicable in relation to the main suit filed for grant of perpetual m.;unction

18. If the submission made on behalf of the defendants that on dismissal of IAs frled under Order XXXX Rules 1 & 2 of CpC in a suit filed for grant of perpetual injunction, the plaint as presented is liable to be rejected, is accepted, in such a situation on dismissal of the IAs filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CpC for grant of temporary injunction, the suits as presented would have to tail and cannot be proceeded further, even without the Court looking into the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff has sought for the suit relief. 19. However, that is not the position of law ald the plaintiff at the time of trial in the main suit by establishing his title to the subject property can obtain a final decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from 9 interfering with his possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property.

20. Insofar as the applications filed under Order VII Rule 1 1 CPC for rejecting the plaint is concerned, it is settled position of law that in order to consider the said application, the Court is only required to consider the plaint averments and the documents being relied upon [See Saleem Bhai and, Ors. u. State of Maharashtra and Ors.a

21. Further, the defendants in the underlying application filed before the Court below did not mention as to under which of the sub-clause of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, they are seeking the relief of rejection of plaint, except stating that the plaint as filed does not disclose any cause of action basing on the pleadings and documents, while the Court below had analysed the plaint averments and found the same as disclosing cause of action. '(zoo:) r scc ssz 10

22. It is also to be noted that it is for the court to look into the plaint averments arld documents filed to anaJyse, as to whether the same discloses cause of action for the plaint to be maintained, and it is not for the defendants to scrutinize the pleadings and documents filed by the plaintiff to tell whether on the basis of the pleadings and documents, a case is not made out.

23. It is also trite law thar pleadings in a plaint ought to be read as a whole without compartmenfatizing, isolation, dissection, inversion of the language in the plaint, in order to ascertain its true meaning [See:shckti Bhog Food Ind,ustries Ltd.. o, The Centrq.l Bank of Ind.lc & Ors.{. 24. It is equally well settled that while considering an application for rejection of plaint on the ground of cause of action, distinction has to be maintained between a case where there is no cause of action and where the plajnt does not disclose cause of action, and a rejection of plaint can 'ern zo\sczzzr j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 71, 1,ii ,'/ only be entertained in case where plaint does not disclose cause of action.

25. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh ln M.A.E.Kumar Krishna Vanna o Sri Ramojt Rao q.nd others6, in para 17 thereof, had dealt with the said aspect of the matter and held as under: "l7.The petitioner/first defendant who seeks rejecrion ol.the plaint has, rherefore, ro esrablish that the plaint does nor disclose a cause of action or that from the averments in the plaint it appears that the suit is baned by any law. Therc is vast diflerence between a case whcre there is no cause of action and the one r,",herc the plaint does not disclose a cause ol action. Clause (a) is not applicable to a case where therc is no cause of action lt would be appricable only when the defendant is able to show that the plaint does not disclose a cause o It is not the a bsence of cau seofa ction forthes t cntails on but the absc nce of disclosu re of cau seo f action I action uit tha reiecti 'lhe Court by observing so further held: , . . The question as to whcther or not there is cause of action for lhe suit, does not arise for consideration at this stage. Thc decisi on on thc uesti nastoth eexistcnce or othe nt'lse of the causeof action deoends not merelv on the ave rments in fhc u o.oJ o,.rz.os.zo08 in cRp.No.733 of 2oo8 i l l I I ent a t I latcr sta 1,2 n t e TI not at e h to be nder o or re I t f cause of -d to be ection PC is n rV CPC. undcr o action ln thc ola tn a In ord er to ascerta in whe ther th discloses a causc of action or not,the avermentsint he have tobe rcad as a whole and a lso in a meant nsful manner. In State of Orissa v. Klockner and Company and others AIR 1996 SC 2140, the Apex Court held thar reiection of th e Dlain t fs not Dro per when the Court does not maintain tlistincti 0n betlvee ntheo that there wrsnoca use of action for thc suitandplea that the plaint docs not disclose causc of action. !aint e Ch.Satganardga.na

26. The dicta laid down in the afore said decisions has been followed by this Court in ?.Snniuas a. B,Bhujo.nga Rq,o & Anothefl, V.y.prabhu v Rajua and N.V.Subba Raju and Rrrmulq.mma @ Kesari Ramulamma and SS otherss. 27. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in Eld.eco Houslng and, Ind,ustries Ltd. V. Ashok Vidgartha & Othersto referring to the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Kamala and another u. Thad.em q ' Otd.et dt.2L.OA.2023 in CRp.No.1078 of 2O2l urder dt.28.06.2023 in CRp.No. t639 of 2023 'otdet dt.o'.o7.2024 in cRp.No.1849 0t 2023 orderdt.30.l1.2023 in Spt. Leave petition (C) No.l9465of202I I , 13 Others o. K,T.Eshutara Sa & Otherstt had held that no e'ridence or merits of controversy carl be examined while deciding a petition f,rled for rejection of plaint.

28. Applying the settled position of law as detailed herein above to the facts of the present case, though the defendants had contended the plaint not disclosing any cause of action, the Court below having analysed the plaint averments in its entirety and frnding that the plarnt averments disclosing cause of action, and as such, the same cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, at the threshold, this Court is of the considered view that the said order of the Court below does not suffer from either any illegality or inlirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 29 . Accordingly, this Ci',ril Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. " 1zooa1 tz scc eor 14

30. Consequently, miscellaneous pending shall stand closed. petitions, if any, SD ASSI t- T TIRUMALA DEVI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J DL/PSL The Junior Civil Judge at Devarakonda One CC to Sri. Two CD Copies P Radhakrishna, Advocate {OpUC HIGH COURT DATED:2810212O25 ) ORDER CRP.No.3818 of 2O24 1t{ESTAre a q c 2 B l'1[l 216 9 jt 'l DISMISSING THE C.R.P.