Telangana High Court
Kaki Krishna vs Smt.Uppula Samatha on 7 February, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition Nos.372 and 381 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issue in the instant Revisions is one and
the same and the parties also being the same, they are
being disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. Heard Mr.N. Bhasker Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner in both the Revisions.
3. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition
No.372 of 2025 are discussed hereunder :
4. Civil Revision Petition No.372 of 2025 is filed by the
petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assailing the order dated 23.10.2024 in I.A.No.772 of 2023
in Original Suit No.460 of 2022 passed by the Principal
Senior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District (for
short, 'the impugned order').
5. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected
the petition filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(c) of
::2:: PSK,J
crp_372&381_2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to reject the
plaint.
6. The application under Order VII Rule 11(c) of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 filed by the petitioner before the
Trial Court was on the ground that : (i) firstly, the suit
being vexatious; and (ii) secondly the suit schedule
property itself, on an earlier round of litigation, (i.e., in
O.S.No.1175 of 2008, wherein a judgment and decree was
passed vide order dated 05.06.2013 in O.S.No.1175 of
2008 by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar), as a consequence, had already been
subjected to partition. That an appeal has been preferred
by the 2nd respondent herein, viz., A.S.No.987 of 2013,
against the said judgment is still pending before this High
Court.
7. A perusal of the record would go to show that the 1st
respondent (plaintiff) in the instant case was not a party to
the earlier round of litigation (referred above). This fact
itself is sufficient to uphold the impugned order passed by
the Trial Court. Since in the earlier suit in which the 1st
respondent (plaintiff) herein was not a party, the same
::3:: PSK,J
crp_372&381_2025
cannot be a ground against her for the preliminary
objection by way of a petition under Order VII Rule 11(c) of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
8. Further, the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is one which has to be looked by way of trial and
the same cannot be decided at this stage under Order VII
Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
9. Therefore, reserving the right of the petitioner to
place all these contentions in the Written Statement and
also to cross-examine the 1st respondent (plaintiff) herein
on this preliminary objection, the Civil Revision Petition at
this juncture stands dismissed. No costs.
10. However, this Court is of the opinion that considering
that the suit schedule property has already been subjected
to partition in an earlier round of litigation (referred above)
among the family members, it is expected that the Trial
Court shall take all necessary steps to conclude the
proceedings in Original Suit No.460 of 2022, pending on its
file, as expeditiously as possible.
::4:: PSK,J
crp_372&381_2025
11. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition No.372 of 2025
stands dismissed. As a consequence, Civil Revision
Petition No.381 of 2025 also stands dismissed on similar
lines. No costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date : 07.02.2025
Ndr
