Telangana High Court
Pulimamidi Geetha Reddy, , Sandadi ... vs P.Shreyas Reddy on 4 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1850 of 2023
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 24.02.2023 passed in
I.A.No.29 of 2023 in O.S.No.180 of 2022 by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, the present Civil
Revision Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.180 of 2022 under Order VII
Rule 1 read with Section 26 of CPC, seeking an injunction
against the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 3, alleging
interference with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the scheduled lands. During the pendency of the suit, the
petitioners filed I.A.No.29 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(a)
read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint. The trial
court dismissed the petition, observing that the
respondent/plaintiff had set out a cause of action, and that
the claims of the petitioners of not being in India during the
alleged incidents were contradicted by their own passports.
The trial Court also noted that the complaints of the
SKS,J
respondents against the petitioners for illegal interference
were pending adjudication, and that there were multiple
proceedings, including a previous civil suit, which hinted at
previous instances of interference with the possession of the
respondents of the scheduled lands. The counsel of the
petitioners before the trial Court relied on proceedings issued
by the RDO, Bhongir, but the trial Court found that these
orders were passed to maintain peace and prevent breaches of
peace, and did not relate to the alleged cause of action. The
petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal, have filed the present
Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard Sri P. Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Smt.
Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
impugned order of the trial court is liable to be set aside as it
is contrary to law and probabilities of the case and that the
trial Court failed to appreciate the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners/defendants, who sought rejection of
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. He further
SKS,J
submitted that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts,
and that the plaintiff filed the suit with mala fide intention
and that the trial Court erred in holding that the cause of
action would be helpful in the main suit and that rejection of
the plaint was not preferable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
plaint is an abuse of process of law, that the suit is vexatious
litigation, and that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the subject matter. He further contended that the
relief sought is barred by limitation and that the plaintiff is
not entitled to the relief as they do not have possession of the
suit schedule property. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set
aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Civil
Revision Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the petitioners' approach to this Court is
misplaced, as they rely solely on their alleged absence from
India on the date of filing the petition. The counsel argued
that when considering a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC, the Court must examine the averments in the plaint
and any documents filed by the plaintiff along with plaint,
SKS,J
without taking evidence. In this case, the petitioners claim to
have been in the USA on the date of the alleged incident, but
have not produced any documents to support this contention.
Therefore, the counsel urged the court to dismiss the civil
revision petition.
7. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited v. Ashok
Vidyarthi and Ors., wherein in paragraph No.17, it is held as
under:
"17. In Kamala and Ors. v. K. T. Eshwara Sa
and Ors. MANU/SC/7542/2008 : (2008) 12 SCC
661 this Court opined that for invoking Clause (d) of
Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, only the
averments in the plaint would be relevant. For this
purpose, there cannot be any addition or
subtraction. No amount of evidence can be looked
into. The issue on merits of the matter would not
be within the realm of the Court at that stage. The
Court at that stage would not consider any evidence
or enter a disputed question of fact of law. Relevant
paragraphs thereof are extracted below:
21. Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code has
limited application. It must be shows that the
suit is barred under any law. Such a
conclusion must be drawn from the averments
made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order
SKS,J
7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be
mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an
application for rejection of the plaint may be
filed on more than one ground specified in
various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to
that effect must be arrived at. What would be
relevant for invoking Clause (d) of Order 7
Rule 11 of the code are the averments made in
the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be
any addition or subtraction. Absence of
jurisdiction on the part of a court can be
invoked at different stages and under different
provision of the code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.
22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7
Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence
can be looked into. The issues on merit of the
matter which may arise between the parties
would not be within the realm of the Court at
that stage. All issues shall not be subject-
matter of an order under the said provision.
23. The principles of res judicata, when
attracted, would bar another suit in view of
Section 12 of the Code. The question
involving a mixed question of law and fact
which may require not only examination of the
plaint but also another evidence and the order
passed in the earlier suit may be taken up
either as a preliminary issue or at the final
hearing, but, the said question cannot be
determined at that stage.
24. It is one thing to say that the
averments made in the plaint on their face
SKS,J
disclose no cause of action, but it is another
thing to say that although the same discloses
a cause of action, the same is barred by a law.
25. The decisions rendered by this Court
as also by various High Courts are not
uniform in this behalf. But, then the broad
principle which can be culled out therefrom is
that the Court at that stage would not
consider any evidence or enter into a disputed
question of fact of law. In the event, the
jurisdiction of the Court is found to be barred
by any law, meaning thereby, the subject-
matter thereof, the application for rejection of
plaint should be entertained."
8. After considering the submissions of both parties and
reviewing the record, this Court finds that the petitioners'
contention that there is no cause of action to file the suit is
unfounded. The respondent/plaintiff has alleged specific dates
of interference with the suit property, and the suit is one for
simple injunction to prevent further damage. The plaintiff has
stated that the defendants are attempting to intervene in the
suit property, and the dates mentioned in the cause of action
column are the dates on which the defendants allegedly tried
to interfere with the property.
9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamala and
Ors. v. K. T. Eshwara Sa and Ors., laid down a significant
SKS,J
principle regarding the rejection of a plaint under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court
held that when considering an application for rejection of a
plaint under this provision, the scrutiny of the Court should
be limited to the averments made in the plaint.
10. In other words, the Court should only examine the
allegations and claims made by the plaintiff in the plaint,
without taking into account any external evidence. This
approach is predicated on the idea that at the preliminary
stage, the court is not required to delve into the merits of the
case or resolve disputed questions of fact or law. Instead, the
focus of the Court should be on determining whether the
plaint, on its face, discloses a cause of action that is not
barred by any law. If the court finds that the suit is barred by
law, meaning that the subject matter of the suit falls outside
the jurisdiction of the Court, then the application for rejection
of the plaint should be allowed.
11. However, if the plaint does disclose a cause of action,
then the application should be rejected, and the suit should
be allowed to proceed to trial. This principle is essential in
ensuring that the Courts do not prematurely dismiss suits
SKS,J
without affording the parties a fair opportunity to present
their case. By limiting the scope of inquiry at this stage, the
courts can avoid unnecessary delays and ensure that the
litigation process remains efficient and effective.
12. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the
petitioners claim that on those particular dates, they were not
in India but in the USA. To substantiate this claim, the
petitioners purportedly filed passport documents in the trial
court, but these documents were not marked as evidence.
Furthermore, the trial Court observed that the petitioners did
not produce their original passport documents, and the copies
of documents submitted were not authenticated. This Court
cannot consider unmarked documents, and it is not the stage
to consider the documents filed by the petitioner in view of the
settled principles of law. Therefore, the petitioners' contention
regarding their absence from India on the alleged dates of
interference remains unsubstantiated.
13. Consequently, this Court finds that the suit is a simple
injunction suit based on the alleged interference by the
defendants, which must be decided by the trial court after a
full-fledged trial. As there are no grounds to interfere with the
SKS,J
order of the trial Court, this Court holds that this civil revision
petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the order dated 24.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.29 of
2023 in O.S.No.180 of 2022 by the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Bhongir. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.02.2025
SAI
