Bobbiry Kama vs Smt.Kusuma Anitha
2023 Latest Caselaw 2830 Tel

                            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.

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

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.

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:

2020 (2) ALT (SC) 68 (FB)

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

2021 (5) ALD 98 (SC)

2020 (2) ALD 330 (AP)

2021 (4) ALD 261 (AP)

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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