APHC010167952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 895/2025 Between: Cheemakurthi Chandrasekhar ...PETITIONER AND Jami Bala Raju ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER The defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 14.02.2025 in I.A.No.122 of 2022 in O.S.No.72 of 2021 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam. 2. The parties to this revision are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit, for the sake of convenience. Page 2 of 6 3. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.72 of 2021 to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of “JKLMN” and “ABOINMLK” plaint plan marked property and for recovery of possession duly ejecting the defendant; for mandatory injunction for removal of RCC roofed G+4 storied building constructed in the part of plaint red marked “JKLMN” and consequential permanent injunction etc. 4. In the plaint, it was contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property purchased vide document No.4126 of 2003 dated 13.10.2003, marked in the rough sketch as “ABCDEFGHIJ”. The defendant approached the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property and entered into an agreement of sale dated 04.04.2019, agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- per cent, for a total extent of Ac.0.36 cents. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.50,01,000/- in three instalments. After a lapse of time stipulated in the agreement, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to extend the time. Even after the lapse of the extended period, the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract and get the property registered. The plaintiff is a senior citizen, aged 70 years, held up at Hyderabad due to the pandemic situation. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 07.07.2021. The defendant received the notice and got issued reply on 13.07.2021 with false and untenable allegations. After receipt of the reply notice, the plaintiff had a doubt and went to schedule property on 17.07.2021 and found that construction of RCC G+4 building is going on. The defendant illegally entered and trespassed into some part of suit schedule property without any manner of right and constructed a multi- storied building in the north-east corner i.e. “JKLMN”, and he occupied the site around 653 square feet. The defendant is trying to trespass into the remaining suit schedule property with the help of his henchmen and trying to sell away the plots in “JKLMN” marked plan to the general public. The defendant also entered into the adjacent area of “JKLMN” and has been using the same for dumping bricks etc., and filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra. 5. The defendant filed a written statement and has been contesting the suit. 6. Pending the suit, the defendant filed I.A.No.122 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (b) of CPC to reject the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was reiterated about the agreement of sale, payment of the advance of Rs.50,01,000/-. The averments in the plaint as well as the legal notice would reflect possession of the defendant. The plaint is misconceived and intentionally framed seeking a declaration of title. The suit is barred by law under Order II Rule 2 of CPC and prayed to reject the plaint. 7. The plaintiff filed a counter, and opposed the application. 8. The trial Court, by order dated 14.02.2025 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 9. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court failed to consider the scope of Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (b) of CPC. He would also submit that the defendant filed another suit O.S.No.32 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 04.04.2019. He would submit that the suit property is adjacent to the property of the defendant, and the defendant constructed a house on his property, and the claim of the plaintiff regarding the rough sketch portion is misconceived. 11. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 14.02.2025 in I.A.No.122 of 2022 in O.S.No.72 of 2021 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam suffers from any illegality warranting interference by this Court? 12. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success 11, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and observed that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in their entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon and it was observed that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. 13. In Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali 2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.” 1 (2004) 9 SCC 512 : 2003 SCC OnLine SC 1295 2 (2020) 7 SCC 366 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 128 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 562 14. In Kamala Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa3, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that only the averments in the plaint would be relevant for invoking Order VII Rule11 (d) of CPC. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the said principle in Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Others4 and held that no amount of evidence or merits of the controversy could be examined at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 16. Keeping the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, let this Court examine the application filed by the defendant. 17. In the plaint, it was specifically contended about the agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the plaint, it was further averred that the defendant trespassed into the schedule property and is making constructions in “JKLMN” and a mandatory injunction was sought for the removal of said construction. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that having admitted about agreement of sale, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for a declaration; this Court is not persuaded by said submission. 18. In Paragraph-10 of the written statement, the defendant pleaded that he did not encroach or trespass an inch of the site belonging to the plaintiff, much less the site shown in the plaint plan, said to have been occupied by him. All the mentioned constructions were made on the defendant’s site, which was purchased by him under a registered sale deed in the year 2020 and completed the construction by June 2020 as 3 (2008) 12 SCC 661 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 727 4 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1033 per the approved plan. The plaintiff woke up from a long slumber and took a false plea to gloss over the factum of delivery of the suit land to the defendant on the date of the agreement of sale dated 04.04.2019. 19. The trial Court observed in Paragraph 23 of the order that the agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendant is a non-possessory sale agreement. The averments in Paragraph 10 of the written statement would show that the defendant is disputing the title of the property, wherein construction was made, in a way denying the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property. In such an event, this Court doesn’t find any infirmity in the suit. 20. Given the discussion supra, the trial Court considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the application. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity or illegality and brooks interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any merit in the above revision, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD