1
SK,J
CRP.No.3124 OF 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3124 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.172 of 2022 in O.S.No.3232 of 2022 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanmakonda.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.3232 of 2022. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction. Upon receipt of summons in the suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.172 of 2022 under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint and the said petition was dismissed through the order under challenge.
2
SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/ defendants submits that the respondents have not approached the Court with clean hands as their vendor has already sold his land in Sy.No.723 to an extent of Ac.0.05 guntas in favour of one Dondapati Venugopal Reddy and Dondapati Rajagopal through registered sale deeds as such the claim of the respondents is baseless. Originally the pattadar of the land in Sy.No.723 is one Katakam Ramaswamy and after his demise his five sons have divided the same among themselves, in which one of sons was the vendor of the respondents has got only Ac.0.05 guntas which was already sold out in the name of third parties, as such the question of executing sale deed in favour of the respondents is false and baseless. The Court below ought to have seen the counter filed by the respondents that they have purchased 200 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.723 under simple sale deed which was validated by Tahsildar and as long 3 SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022 as the nature of land is agriculture, the ROR Act will applicable to the agricultural land but not to the house plots, as such the alleged proceedings obtained by the respondents are invalid and unjust. The Court below ought to have seen that the vendor of the petitioners himself filed a private complaint against the respondents. The petitioners filed a police complaint against the respondents, when they were trying to interfere with the house plots of the petitioners and the petitioner No.3 obtained permission on 04.01.2021 for construction and also obtained LRS permission, as such there is no legal right of property though the petitioners have categorically demonstrated before the Court below for rejection of plaint and requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
4
SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022
5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners in support of his contention placed reliance on the following Judgment:
1. Canara Bank Vs. P.Selathal and Others 1
6. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the petitioners have to participate in the trial by filing their written statements in order to substantiate their case and without doing so, filed petition for rejection of the plaint. The Civil Revision Petition is filed to drag on the proceedings and to avoid the trial and there are no grounds in the Civil Revision Petition and requested to dismiss the same.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondents in support of their contention placed reliance on the following Judgments:
1
2020 (2) ALT (SC) 68 (FB) 5 SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022
1. Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and others 2
2. Pathapati Ynadi Reddy Vs. Nukalapati Subbamma 3
3. Kuppam Venkata Prasad and antoehr Vs. Gatta Rama Mohan Rao 4
8. After hearing both sides and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents herein filed suit for injunction against the petitioners under Section 26 read with Orders IV, VII Rule 1 CPC. The suit schedule properties are open house plots admeasuring to an extent of 277.14 sq. yards in Sy.No.723 and 211.75 sq. yards in Sy.No.723 situated at Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal.
9. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.172 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C., for rejection of plaint on the ground that the 2 2021 (5) ALD 98 (SC) 3 2020 (2) ALD 330 (AP) 4 2021 (4) ALD 261 (AP) 6 SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022 respondents/plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule properties as their vendor sold the suit schedule properties to the third parties prior to 1995 prior to selling the same by the respondents in the year 1999. Even though the respondents have got knowledge that they have no right over the suit schedule properties, they have filed the present plaint and approached the Court with unclean hands. The boundaries mentioned in the plaint and the suit documents filed along with the plaint are not matching with each other. The respondents have knowledge that there are no lands and the allegation that the petitioners have interfered with the land of the respondents is false and the petitioners have filed police complaint against the respondents was also not revealed by the respondents in the suit. The respondents have created false and fancy dates i.e., 17.01.2021 and 24.01.2021 for filing of the suit as the 7 SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022 cause of action. The claim of the respondents is false, vexatious, without any merit and also does not disclose clear right to sue and there is no cause of action for the respondents to file the present suit.
10. The respondents herein filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioners and contended that the relief under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is very narrow and opposed the same, but it cannot be stretched otherwise and it can be only be adjudicated based on the plaint, but not on the rival contentions of the parties.
11. The Court below has dismissed the said application filed for rejection of plaint after hearing both sides and held that the contentions raised by the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of Order VII Rule II C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. The said order is impugned in the present revision petition. 8
SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022
12. After perusing the plaint, the cause of action is as follows:
"The cause of action arose on 17.05.1999, the date on which plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule plot through registered sale deed and simple sale deed and inducted into possession on the date of purchase and on 22.05.2020 plaintiff No.1 executed gift deed over road effected portion to the Government and also obtained permission from Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal on 10.10.2020 and more particularly on 17.01.2021, the dates on which the defendants with the assistance of their yesmen came on 24.01.2021 to the suit schedule plot and threatened the plaintiff No.1 with dire consequences and made clandestine efforts to dispossess the plaintiff No.1 in ugly haste by abusing the due process, and thereafter drive them out by the plaintiff No.1 with the assistance of her well wishers and the cause of action is continuing on all subsequent dates thereto". A close reading of the cause of action clearly shows the cause of action for filing injunction suit and along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed registered documents. The said documents have to be considered at the time of adjudication of the suit, but not at the stage of petition for rejection of plaint. 9
SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022
13. A plain reading of the plaint clearly discloses the cause of action for filing the suit for permanent injunction and whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties has to be adjudicated after completion of the detailed trial but not basing on the averments in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs or the written statement filed by the defendants. The contention of the plaintiffs about the interference by the defendants in the suit schedule properties will be decided after full-fledged trial.
14. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not apply to the facts of the present case. Whereas the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents apply to the instant case. The Honourable Supreme Court in Srihari's case (cited 2 supra) held that Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected 'where the suit appears 10 SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022 from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". Hence, in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed. The Court while deciding such an application must have due regard only to the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in case.
15. In the instant case, in the plaint, the respondents have stated the bundle of facts about their right over the suit schedule properties and also clearly mention the cause of action for filing the injunction suit. In view of the same, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition for rejection of plaint filed by the petitioners.
16. In view of the above findings, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. 11
SK,J CRP.No.3124 OF 2022
17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ JUSTICE K. SARATH Date.03.10.2023 sj/trr