Sama Sanjeev Reddy vs Aerra Srikanth
2025 Latest Caselaw 2376 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sama Sanjeev Reddy vs Aerra Srikanth on 20 February, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA


        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1417 OF 2023


ORDER:

This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated

06.01.2023 passed in IA.No.1220 of 2022 in OS.No.98 of 2021

on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Maheshwaram, Ranga

Reddy District, whereunder, the application filed by

petitioner/defendant No.8 under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b) and (d)

of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') seeking rejection of

plaint, was dismissed observing that existence of cause of action

is mixed question of fact and law.

2. The brief facts before the trial Court are that the

respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate

possession, and for declaring certain registered documents as

null and void, against the petitioner/defendant No. 8 and

respondents Nos.3 to 9/defendant Nos.1 to 7. The petitioner

contended that the suit is false, ill-conceived, and untenable in

law, lacking cause of action, and undervalued. Per contra, the

respondents/plaintiffs denied the allegations, stating that the

suit for partition is maintainable among family members, and

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

that the defendants Nos.5 to 8 manipulated records by creating

certain documents. They also contended that the plaint

discloses clear cause of action, and that the reliefs have been

properly valued. Being aggrieved by dismissal of IA.No.1220 of

2022, this revision is preferred.

3. Heard Sri K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for

petitioner/defendant No.8. None appeared for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

impugned order of the trial Court is contrary to law, facts, and

probabilities of the case. He contended that the suit filed by

respondents/plaintiffs is barred by limitation, as they challenge

the sale deeds from the years 1999, 2015, and 2016, which

limitation period is only 3 years, that already expired in the year

2019. He lamented that the trial Court erred in dismissing the

Order VII Rule 11 application, ignoring the question of limitation

being pure question of law which could be adjudicated at the

preliminary stage itself. He avowed that the plaint is vexatious,

meritless, and does not make out any ground and that the

plaintiffs deliberately had not sought for the relief of setting

aside or cancellation of registered sale deeds and gift deeds in

favor of the defendants. He asserted that the plaint is defective

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

as it does not state the age of the parties which is a crucial fact

in a partition suit. Furthermore, the respondents have not

properly valued the reliefs, and the suit is false, ill-conceived,

and untenable in law, amounting to an abuse of the court

process. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision

petition, setting aside the impugned order.

5. Having regard to the submissions made and on going

through the material placed on record, it is noted that while

dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC

the Court has to consider the plaint averments and the

documents filed by the plaintiffs along with plaint.

6. On perusing the plaint averments, it is seen that the

plaintiffs claim the subject properties through one Aerra

Narsaiah stating that he is their great grandfather, who was the

owner, possessor, and pattadar of vast agricultural lands

situated at Dubbacherla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. Upon his demise, his properties devolved upon

his three sons, namely, Pochaiah, the grandfather of the

plaintiffs; Ramaiah, who died issueless; and Kistaiah, the father

of defendants 1 to 4. Thereafter, an oral partition took place

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

among his legal heirs, resulting in the division of properties

owned by Aerra Narsaiah.

7. The contention of petitioner is that there is no cause of

action for filing suit, whereas, the cause of action column

mentioned in the plaint would show that when plaintiffs

requested the defendant Nos.1 to 4 for partition, they refused for

the same, due to which the plaintiffs filed suit. Therefore, it

cannot be said that there is no cause of action for filing suit.

Whenever, the petition is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC

the Court has to consider the plaint averments only and not the

written statement of defendant. That being so, at this stage, it

cannot be said that there is no cause of action. Further, the

learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment rendered

in the case of Bajranglal Agarwal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and

Others 1 whereunder, it was observed that 'the expression

'Cause of Action' has been described to mean every fact which

would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order

to support the plaintiff's right to judgment. In other words, cause

of action consists of a bundle of material facts which are

necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle the plaintiff

2024 LawSuit (TS) 148

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

to the relief claimed. For ascertaining cause of action, the

averments made in the plaint must be read in its entirety - and

not in isolation - and must be held to be correct. Simply put, the

plaintiff must prove its case on the averments made in the plaint

and further the relief claimed must have a real nexus with the

cause of action pleaded. The plaint must disclose a clear Right to

Sue not an Illusion or Mirage of Cause of Action.

8. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, suit was filed

for partition and the contention of plaintiff is that the father of

the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property and

that he was doing agriculture in the said land, therefore, that he

is entitled for the 2/3rd share which is a disputed fact to be

decided after adjudication. Further, learned counsel for

petitioner also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of

Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh 2

wherein, it was observed as under:

"4.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant-original

defendant that the registered gift deed was executed

by the original plaintiff in the year 1981. At no

2020 16 SCC 601

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

point of time, till the year 2003, the original plaintiff

as well as his brother late Sheo Prasanna Singh

challenged the registered gift deed dated 6-3-1981.

It is submitted that therefore the present suit filed

by the plaintiff challenging the registered gift deed

was after a period of approximately 22 years from

the date of the execution of the registered gift deed

and, therefore, the same was clearly barred by law

of limitation, more particularly, considering Article

59 of the Limitation Act.

4.2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant-original

defendant that the High Court as well as the trial

court ought to have appreciated the fact that by

mere clever drafting, the plaintiff cannot bring the

suit within the period of limitation, if otherwise the

same is barred by law of limitation. It is submitted

that, in the present case, as such, the original

plaintiff deliberately did not specifically pray to set

aside the registered gift deed dated 6-3-1981. It is

submitted that if the plaintiff would have asked for

such a relief, in that case, the plaintiff was aware

that the suit would be dismissed at the threshold

being barred by law of limitation. It is submitted

that, therefore, deliberately the plaintiff specifically

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

did not ask for the relief of quashing and setting

aside the registered gift deed.

4.3. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in T.

Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v.

T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] ; Ram Singh v.

Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan [Ram Singh v. Gram

Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364] and

Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal

[Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal,

(2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] , it is

requested to allow the present appeal and quash

and set aside the impugned order [Raghwendra

Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, 2013 SCC

OnLine Pat 1527 : (2014) 4 PLJR 147] rejecting

Order 7 Rule 11 application submitted by the

defendant.

4.4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant-original

defendant that as held by this Court in a catena of

decisions while considering the application under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the

plaint are required to be considered.

4.5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant-original

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

defendant that if clever drafting has created the

illusion of a cause of action, as observed by this

Court in a catena of decisions, the Court must nip

it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the

party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. It is further

submitted that, therefore, as observed by this Court

in T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V.

Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] , an activist Judge is

the answer to irresponsible law suits. It is

submitted that, in the present case, if the bundle of

facts narrated in the plaint and the averments in

the plaint, as a whole, are considered, in that case,

the suit is not only barred by law of limitation, but

it is a vexatious and meritless suit and, therefore,

the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of

powers under Rule 7 of Order 11 CPC.

4.6. In support of his submissions, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-

original defendant has relied upon the decisions of

this Court in T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v.

T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] ; Church of Christ

Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society

v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [Church of

Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable

Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8

SCC 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612] ; ABC Laminart

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

(P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v.

A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163] ; Bloom Dekor

Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai [Bloom Dekor Ltd.

v. Subhash Himatlal Desai, (1994) 6 SCC 322] ;

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. [Sopan

Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC

137] ; Sham Lal v. Sanjeev Kumar [Sham Lal v.

Sanjeev Kumar, (2009) 12 SCC 454 : (2009) 4 SCC

(Civ) 741] ; N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma

[N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma, (2005) 5

SCC 548 : AIR 2005 SC 2897] and Ram Prakash

Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta [Ram Prakash Gupta

v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59] . Making

the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the

present appeal and quash and set aside the

impugned order [Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram

Prasanna Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 1527 :

(2014) 4 PLJR 147] passed by the High Court as

well as the trial court rejecting Order 7 Rule 11

application and consequently to allow the said

application and to reject the plaint in exercise of

powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

6.4. In T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V.

Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] , while considering the

very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and

the decree of the trial court in considering such

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

application, this Court in para 5 has observed and

held as under: (SCC p. 470)

"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in

condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of

the process of the court repeatedly and

unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of

the facts found in the judgment of the High Court,

it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before

the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant

misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving

plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if

on a meaningful -- not formal -- reading of the

plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in

the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he

should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned

therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has

created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in

the bud at the first hearing by examining the party

searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge

is the answer to irresponsible law suits."

6.5. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust &

Educational Charitable Society [Church of Christ

Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society

v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612] , this Court in para

13 has observed and held as under: (SCC p. 715)

"13. While scrutinising the plaint averments, it is

the bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the

materials for cause of action. The cause of action is

a bundle of facts which taken with the law

applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to

relief against the defendant. Every fact which is

necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to

get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is

worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words

"cause of action". A cause of action must include

some act done by the defendant since in the

absence of such an act no cause of action can

possibly accrue."

6.6. In ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [ABC

Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC

163] , this Court explained the meaning of "cause of

action" as follows: (SCC p. 170, para 12)

"12. A cause of action means every fact, which if

traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to

prove in order to support his right to a judgment of

the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts

which taken with the law applicable to them gives

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It

must include some act done by the defendant since

in the absence of such an act no cause of action

can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual

infringement of the right sued on but includes all

the material facts on which it is founded. It does

not comprise evidence necessary to prove such

facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to

prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything

which if not proved would give the defendant a right

to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of

action. But it has no relation whatever to the

defence which may be set up by the defendant nor

does it depend upon the character of the relief

prayed for by the plaintiff."

6.7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo

Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] in

paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed as under:

(SCC p. 146)

"11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the

basic question to be decided while dealing with an

application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code

is whether a real cause of action has been set out in

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

the plaint or something purely illusory has been

stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of

the Code.

12. The trial court must remember that if on a

meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is

manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of

not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise

the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking

care to see that the ground mentioned therein is

fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of

a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at

the first hearing by examining the party searchingly

under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam

v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal,

(1977) 4 SCC 467] .)"

6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy

[Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal,

(2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] , this

Court has observed and held as under: (SCC pp.

178-79, para 7)

"7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule

11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision

are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts

which need to be looked into for deciding the

application are the averments of the plaint only. If

on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it

is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and

meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to

sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the

court to terminate civil action at the threshold is

drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of

plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments

of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out

whether the averments disclose a cause of action or

whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless

to observe that the question as to whether the suit

is barred by any law, would always depend upon

the facts and circumstances of each case. The

averments in the written statement as well as the

contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial

while considering the prayer of the defendant for

rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations

made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a

whole on their face value, if they show that the suit

is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of

action, the application for rejection of plaint can be

entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint

has created the illusion of a cause of action, the

court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that

bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage."

9. That apart, the second contention of learned counsel for

petitioner is that the suit is barred by limitation as the

documents pertain to the years 1999, 2015, and 2016 and now

the cancellation of the documents is sought for which would be

just and enough ground to reject the plaint. However, it is

pertinent to note that declaration of sale deeds is a

consequential relief and not the main relief, and that being so,

the plaint cannot be rejected partially and the same would

require trial.

10. On going through the plaint averments, it is noted that

the plaint lacks material particulars like under which law the

suit was filed. Further, there are no such averments in the

plaint which has to be seen by the trial Court while numbering

the suits and the same was not done by the trial Court. The trial

Court has to take care of these aspects in the near future while

numbering the suits filed for partition of joint family properties.

However, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

opinion that there are no illegalities or irregularities in the

impugned order, warranting interference of this Court. There

are no merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to

be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J

Date:20.02.2025 PT

SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

P.D ORDER IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1417 OF 2023

Date:20.02.2025 PT