AP HIGH COURT ; AMARAVATHI;
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1458 of 2021
D.NARMADAVersus
THALLURI DHANALAKSHMI
ORDER:-
The respondents had filed O.S.No.441 of 2014 before the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for permanent
injunction against the petitioners herein from dispossessing
the respondents from the suit schedule property. The case of
the respondents herein was that the property was originally
part of land belonging to one M.Singaracharyulu and his wife
Pattammal from whom various persons, in succession, had
purchased the property ending with Sri Vijay Kumar, who
formed a lay out of the property and sold it to various persons
with the plaintiffs finally obtaining title over the suit schedule
property from one Balineni Chandraiah.
2. The petitioners herein filed their written statement
and at the stage of framing of issues, the petitioners moved
I.A.No.1386 of 2016 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, for
rejection of the pliant, on the ground that one K.R.Krishna
Reddy, who is said to be the vendors of the vendor through
whom the respondents herein are claiming title, had been held
to have no right or title over the property in O.S.No.89 of 1974
on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi.
3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court
on 26.07.2017 on the ground that the said application does
not make out any case under order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.
2
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have
approached this Court.
5. Heard Sri Varadarajulu Chetty learned counsel,
appearing for the petitioners.
6. The contention raised in the application filed
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C is that the respondents herein
have no right or title over the property and the same is
reflected in the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Tirupathi, dated 31.08.1989 in O.S.No.89 of 1974. This fact is
not available in the plaint filed by the respondents. This is a
fact which has been raised by way of an additional written
statement and by way of the application moved before the trial
Court. It is settled law, that a Court, while considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, would only
consider the pleadings in the plaint to decide whether a cause
of action is made out in the plaint and whether any statement
in the plaint would show that the plaint is barred under any
provision of law.
7. In the present case, no such statement made in
the plaint has been shown to this Court and it is an admitted
fact that the application has been moved on the basis of
information obtained by the petitioners subsequent to the
filing of the suit.
8. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the orders of the trial Court.
3
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to raise
all these issues before the trial Court in the course of the trial.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil
Revision Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 17-01-2022
RJS
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1458 of 2021
Date : 17.01.2022
RJS
