CRP/3638/2025 of Sri C. Karunakar Vs Sri Dendi Vikas Reddy on 10 October 2025

ORDER:

Challenging the order, daled 23.07 2025 passed in l.A No.510 of 2023 in O S No.77 of 2024 (old O.S.No.108 of 2016) by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy (for short 'trial Court'), the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.3 under Order Vll Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint was dismissed

2. Heard Mr. V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the recoro

3. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 3.1 The trial Court failed to consider that the plaint is liable to be dismissed, as respondent Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.1 and 2, in their written statement filed on 14.03.2017, clearly stated that the subject land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.03.25 gts. and Ac.O.'l 5 gts. in Sy.Nos.7311 and 74 respectively situated at Cheduruvelly Village of Veldanda Mandal, had already sold to the petitioner herein prior to filing of the suit itself. Despite this, respondent No.1-plaintiff, with full knowledge of the sale, failed to implead the petitioner until 31 .O8.2021 I

J y i.e., after more than four years. Thus, the claim against the petitioner is barred by limitation, which is evident from the record and need not be established through trial. Even though there was a glaring omission to implead the petitioner after knowledge of the sale in his favour, the trial Court erroneousl'l held that the suit was filed within limitation.

3.2. As per Se,ction 3 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882, a registered docun.ent is deemed to be within the knowledge of all the concerned. Therefore. the relief sought for cancellation ,rf the gift deed bearing document No.1325 of 2008, dated 26.02..2008 is not maintainable, as t is time barred by more than eight years. Likewise, the registered sale deed, dated 24.10.2016, executed in favour of the petitioner, cannot ce challenged in the suit proceedings 3.3. The plaint is liable to be rejected as the plaintiff has not shown any cause of actlon within limitation and has not sought any relief against him. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order Vll Rule I1 of C.P.C., and the trial Court was not required to embark upon a full-fledged trial. The dismissal of the petition on the ground that the specific sub-section (d) of Order Vll Rule'1 1 of C.P.C. was not mentioned is unsustainable, especially when the affidavit sets out the clear grounds. Fr-rrthermore, a mere prayer for cancellation of a gift deed, without any consequential relief regarding possession either for perpetual injunction or recovery of possession is not maintainable, and the suit is thus barred by law. 3.4- Hence, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order.

A perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondent No.2-defendant No.1 are the own brothers of respondent No.3-defendant No.2. As per the averments in the suit, respondent No.2-defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed bearing document No.1325 of 2008, dated 26.02.2008 in respect of the subject land, in favour of respondent No.3-defendant No.2, by impersonating the signatures of respondent No.'1-plaintiff. Respondent Nos,2 and 3- defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement on 14.03.20'17, wherein, it was clearly stated that respondent No.3-defendant No.2 had sold the subject land to the petitioner-defendant No.3 and also executed a registered sale deed in his favour.

The suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff contains no specific allegations against the petitioner. Notably, even after respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statements on 14.03.2017, disclosing the sale in favour of the cetitioner-defendant No.3, respondenl No.1-plaintiff failbd to implead ther petitioner until 31 .082021 i.e., after a delay of more than four years

6. Upon examination of the impugned order, it is evident that the trial Court disrnissed the petitioner's application filed under Order Vll Rule'l 1 of C.P.tl , observing that the petitioner did not specify the exact sub-section (fron sub-section (a) to (f)) under which rejection of the plaint was sougf,t and further observed that the issue of cause of action was a mixed qur.stion of Iaw and fact. which require acijudication during the course of trial

7. However, i' is a well-settled principle that non-rnention of the specific sub-sectic,n under OrderVll Rule 11 of C.P.C. is notfatal to the maintainability of the petition. The mere omission to ciie a particular provision does nc'' take away the Court's power to act, provided the action falls within tfre scope of its jurisdiction under the relevant rule

8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 23.07.2025 passed in lA.No.510 of 2023 in O.S.No.77 ot 2024 (old O S.No.1OB of 2016) by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy, is set aside and the matter is 'I

remanded back to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy for fresh consideration of lA.No510 of 2023 in O.S.No77 of 2024 (old O.S.No 10B of 2016). The learned Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy is directed to dispose of the said l.A. afresh, rn accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, and without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SI)/- N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO EPT]TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I I To,

The Senior Civil Judge, at Kalwakurthy. One CC to Sri. Srinivas Velagapudi Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies. YJR /PSL I kv-

HIGH COUR] DATED:1 011Ct2025 ?-)

ORDER

:). CRP.No.3638 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. t> t Ii-rE s tA{s :t'- 1 / 0cT 2025 -ljr 1:i-\ .irY.- r)@ **-.: fft{