1 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1637 of 2025) APHC010269432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1637/2025 Between: 1. SMT PARVATHANENI DEEPIKA, W/O.VIJAY KUMAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. D. NO.8-2-603/1/10, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, ...PETITIONER AND 1. VADDE BALAJI, S/o. Late Raghavendra Rao, R/o. Flat No.502, A- Castle Apartment, Ashok Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District Now NTR District ...RESPONDENT 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 toPetitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the decree and order dated 19-02-2025 in I.A.No. 348 of 2024 in O.S.No.41 of 2024 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge(Senior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna (Now N.T.R.) District IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.41 of 2024 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge(Senior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna (Now N.T.R.) District pending the above Civil Revision Petition and pass such 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1637 of 2025) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VINOBHA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1637 of 2025) The Court made the following: ORDER : Heard Sri M.Vinobha Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 41 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money based on a promissory note. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.348 of 2024 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short ‘CPC’) seeking rejection of the plaint. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 19.02.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has no cause of action and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 4. No other submission has been advanced before this Court. 5. The aforesaid submission was also raised before the learned trial Court but was not accepted. The trial Court, after considering the matter, held that the question as to whether there exists a cause of action or not is a question, which cannot be decided at the threshold and would require determination during trial. 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1637 of 2025) 6. Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC, reads as under: “11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action.” 7. It is evident from the above that a plaint can be rejected under clause (a) only when it does not disclose any cause of action on the face of it. A perusal of the plaint annexed with the petition shows that it discloses a cause of action. Whether or not the plaintiff will ultimately establish such cause of action is a matter to be determined during trial. Since the plaint discloses a cause of action, its rejection at this stage is not warranted under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC. 8. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, warranting interference by this Court. 9. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date : 11.07.2025. RPD. 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1637 of 2025) 140 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISMISSED) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1637 OF 2025 Date : 11.07.2025 RPD.