Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanii Bha't tsali'

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT H\ I IERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISON PETI TION No.431 7 0F 2025 DATE :28.11.2025 Between: Shaik Abdul Shahid Pasha & Others ...Peti':i >ners AND Faheemunnisa Begum & Others ... ResS ondents ORDER: Heard, Mr.M.W.R Jayakar, learned counsel for the pet t oners

2.ThisCivilRevisionPetitionisfiledassailingtheorlerdated 07.11.2025 passed in lA. No449 of 2025 in lA No'345 <f 2025in O.S. No.1B of 2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-;um-Chief Judicial Magiskate, Rajanna Sircilla'

3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suir' The brief facts relevant for adjudication are that the revision petitiono siplaintiffs instituted O.S. No 18 of 2024 seeking partition anrJ seParate During Pende rcY of the possession of the plaint schedule properties I! -l 2 said suit, the resporrdents/defendants filed LA No.345 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 1 1(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by law. Subsequently, the defendants filed LA. No.449 of 2Q25 to receive certain documents in support of their contention, which the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 07 11.2025, allowed, permitting reception of the documents subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.1 . Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the trial Court erred in receiving and marking the documents during the pendency of the application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint. lt is contended that consideration of such documents at this stage would amount to going beyond the scope of Order Vll Rule 11 CPC, which mandates that the Court shall confine its consideration solely to the averments made in the plaint, without reference to the defence set up by the defendants or any extraneous material.

4.2. He further submits that the defendants will have adequate opportunity to rely on any documents they choose to produce along with their written statement or at the stage of trial. Receiving and examtning those documents at the interlocutory stage, particularly 3 when the maintainability of the plaint itself is under r hallenge' ts premature and procedurally improper- Hence' he prays fo rnterference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia I A I have perused the material available on record The record reveals that in l A' No 449 ol 2025 ' t' : defendants 6 sought to file certain documents contending that they '/ ere essential for proper consideration of their application filed under ( rder Vll Rule 11(d) CPC The trial Court, while allowing the sat I application' to proof , observed that the documents could be received su: ect relevancy, and admissibility' and further noted that :hey considered while determining the application for rejectio^ of the plaint may be lt is well settled through a catena of judgments rf the Hon'ble 7. Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanii Bha't tsali' (2020) 7 SCC 366, that while deciding an application under Or: :r Vll Rule 11 CPC, the Court mUSt confine its consideration strictly t,; the averments contained in the plaint and the documents filed along vr h it The pleas raised by the defendant or any document produced by -rem cannot be Iooked into for the purpose of determlning whether the rlaint discloses a cause of action or is barred by law- \ 4 B. ln the present case, although the trial Court has allowed the defendants to file their documents, it has done so subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility, and has not yet adjudlcated upon the question of rejection of the plaint. At this stage, therefore, it would be premature to presume that the trial Court has relied upon or will rely upon such documents while deciding l.A. No.345 of 2025

9. Nevertheless, this Court finds merit in the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that such documents should not form the basis of adjudication in the petition under Order Vll Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court, while deciding the said application, is bound by the settled principle that only the averments in the plaint and the documents filed along with it may be considered, and any material or pleading from the defendants' side shall be wholly irrelevant for that purpose 1l

10. Accordingly, while upholding the impugned order permitting reception of the documents subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify that the trial Court shall not take into account those documents while adjudicating LA. No.345 of 2025 filed under Order Vll Rule 1'1 CPC. The petitionersiplaintiffs shall be entitled to raise all their objections to the,'- admissibility and relevance of those documents at the appropriate stage during trial. 5

11. With the above clarification and liberty, this rl vil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall st2 ld closed ;D/- A.JAYASREE ASSIS TANTREGISTRAR ,.-* SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/i To,

1. The Senlor Civil Judge -Cum' Chief Judicial lvlagistrate Rajanna Srr c la at Siricilla 2. One cC to Sri. lvl W.R.Jayakar, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies PSK/PSL ?k HIGH COURT DATED:2811112025 ,. (' TEi .s, lJ_ o l-& .. \) a \\v.J {s 5' I a(i (- t. tHx I ORDER CRP.No.4317 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CIUL REVISION PETII ION ( A \t Lf