CRP/3240/2024 of PUVVADI RAMANAIAH @ BAKKAIAH Vs PUVVADI VENKATA NARAYANA on 9 March 2026

1. PUVVADI RAMANA 56 YEARS, CULTIV MANDAL, PRAKAS

2. PUVVADI ADI NA YEARS. BUSINES MANDAL, PRAKAS

3. .PUVVADI VENKAT YEARS. BUSINES MANDAL, PRAKAS

4. PUVVADI NAGAIA CULTIVATION, R/O PRAKASAM DISTR

1. PUVVADI VENKAT AGED ABOUT 6 VILLAGE, MARRIP

2. PUVVADI VENKAT ABOUT 58 YEAR MANDAL, PRAKAS

3. PUVVADI RAMANA ABOUT 57 YEAR E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL REVISION PETITION NO: 3240/2024 AIAH @ BAKKAIAH, S/O. NAGAIAH, VATION, R/O. GARLAPETA VILLAGE SAM DISTRICT, A.P. ARAYANA,, S/O. NAGAIAH, AGE SS, R/O. GARLAPETA VILLAGE, SAM DISTRICT, A.P. TESWARLU,, S/O. NAGAIAH, AGE SS, R/O. GARLAPETA VILLAGE, SAM DISTRICT, A.P. AH,, S/O. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOU O. GARLAPETA VILLAGE, MARRIP RICT, A.P. ...P AND TA NARAYANA, S/O. CHINA VENK 61 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. PUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRIC TA RAO, S/O. CHINA VENKATESW RS, R/O. GARLAPETA VILLAGE, SAM DISTRICT. AIAH, S/O. CHINA VENKATESWA RS, R/O. GARLAPETA VILLAGE, DESH

LAPATI AGED ABOUT E MARRIPUDI ED ABOUT 61 MARRIPUDI ED ABOUT 81 MARRIPUDI UT 63 YEARS. PUDI MANDAL, PETITIONER(S) KATESWARLU, GARLAPETA CT. WARLU, AGED MARRIPUDI ARLU, AGED MARRIPUDI

MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

4. PUVVADI RAMBABU, S/O. VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. GARLAPETA VILLAGE, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

5. PUVVADI SAI KRISHNA, , S/O. VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. GARLAPETA VILLAGE MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting-aside the Order dated 30.09.2024 in I.A. No. 249 of 2023 in O.S. No. 219 of 2022 on the file of the Honble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Podili, Prakasam District and Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of the suit in O.S. No. 219 of 2022 on the file of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Podili, Prakasam District in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K PALLAVI

The Court made the following order:

Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili in Interlocutory Application No.249 of 2023 in Original Suit No.219 of 2022, the present Civil Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

i) The petitioners herein are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.219 of 2022.

ii) The respondents herein, who are plaintiffs, filed O.S No.219 of 2022 seeking permanent injunction. The petitioners, who are defendants, filed I.A.No.249 of 2023, under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that they had already filed O.S.No.134 of 2021 against the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is further contended that the respondents filed the present suit based on false allegations and that a suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration is not maintainable. It is further contended that the suit is liable to be rejected as it is hit by suppression of pendency of suit in O.S.134 of 2021, hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

iii) The said application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs by filing counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that the application filed is not at the proper stage for invoking Order VII rule 11 CPC, particularly after the filing of the written statement and counter, when the suit is posted for framing of issues. It is further contended that no valid legal ground has been raised for rejection of the plaint. Hence, prayed to dismiss the said application.

iv) Upon hearing both parties, the Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the grounds urged by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint do not fall within the scope of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC and that the suit is not barred by law. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri G.L.Nageswararao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and the affidavit filed in support of the application before the Court below, contended that the Court below failed to consider the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a right perspective. He further submitted that when the petitioners had already filed a suit in O.S.No.134 of 2021 for declaration and permanent injunction, the filing of a subsequent suit by the respondents for bare injunction, without asking for any declaration, is not maintainable. He further submitted that despite brining these facts to the notice of the Court, the Court below erroneously dismissed the application. He further contended that in the back ground of the present case, if the suit is allowed to proceed, it would not only cause mental agony to the petitioners and amount to a fraudulent exercise, but would also result in unnecessary expenditure for the parties. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and consequently allow the Interlocutory Application by rejecting the plaint.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners have not made out any grounds warranting rejection of the plaint, particularly under Order VII Rules 11 (a) to (f) CPC. In the absence of such grounds, the dismissal of the petitioners’ application is justified. She further contended that mere fact that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and injunction cannot be a ground for seeking rejection of the plaint in the present suit filed by the respondents. She further submitted that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and the petitioners have not made out any valid legal grounds warranting interference by this Court, hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. In a suit for bare injunction filed by respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.No.219 of 2022, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A No.249 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, after filing written statement, seeking rejecting of the plaint. The main ground that has been raised by the petitioners while asking for rejection of plaint that they have already filed O.S.No.134 of 2021 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which is pending adjudication and that the schedule properties in both suits are one and the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that the schedule properties in the two suits are not identical and according to the petitioners, the property is described as a tobacco barren, whereas in the respondents’ suit, it is described as a barren land.

8. In this regard Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is relevant which is extracted herein.

11. Rejection of plaint: The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

9. For the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments made in the plaint alone are to be considered, and the defence taken by the defendants cannot be looked into. The contention of the petitioners that they had already filed a suit for declaration and injunction, and therefore the present suit for bare injunction is not maintainable, cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

10. Further, whether the suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration is maintainable or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and is a matter to be adjudicated upon trial. The same cannot be decided at the threshold while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plea of suppression of the earlier suit is also matter requiring evidence and adjudication, and do not fall within the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

11. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, no grounds have been made out, much less any of the grounds under clauses (a) to (f) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC for seeking rejection of the plaint.

12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application, and the petitioners have failed to make out any valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are not precluded from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law including seeking clubbing or a joint trial, if so available to them. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 10.03.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3240 of 2024 10.03.2026

MP