. W : : IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 861 OF 2025 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 aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.268/2024 in O.S.No.3/2022, dated 27-01-2025 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Between: M/s.Samudra Educational, Rep by its President Mukku Prasada Rao S/o.late Samudram, Aged about 36 years, R/o.Siddipeta Village, Patrunivalasa Post, Srikakulam Mandal and District. ...PETITIONER AND Perla Venkata Ratnam, W/o.Suryanarayana Murthy, Aged about 46 years, R/o.Chowk Road, Srikakulam Town and District. ...RESPONDENTS #> lA 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 |d to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.3/2022 pi-2025 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 0re ft Couilsel for the Petitioner :SRI. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared The Court made the following Order : 4 L APHC010140092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) S:*E [3331] 0 WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 861/2025 Between: M/s.samudra Educational ...PETITIONER AND Perla Venkata Ratnam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The defendant in the suit filed the above revision petition against the order dated 27.01.2025 in I.A.No.268 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2022 against the defendant seeking eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and recovery of Rs.. 35,00,000/-, towards arrears of rents @ 24%. Page 2 of 6 SRS.J C.R.P.No,861 of 202, In the plaint, it was pleaded that an agreement of rent deed was entered into on 15.10.2019, for 9 years 11 months, with a monthly rent of Rs.1,40,000/-. The defendant paid Rs.. 8,28,000/-, as a refundable advance. The defendant paid rent for two months, and thereafter, failed to pay the same. The plaintiff came to know that the Srikakulam Municipality had issued a distress warrant on 20.02.2021, regarding arrears of municipal tax. The defendant failed to pay the outstanding rent. With the said averments, the petitioner filed the aforementioned suit. 4. 5. The defendant filed a written statement and has been contesting the suit. 6. Pending the suit, the defendant filed I.A.No.268 of 2024 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint. It was pleaded that a registered agreement of rental lease was entered into for 9 years and 11 months. In the said registered sale deed dated 15.10.2019, no condition was incorporated stating that in the event of defendant’s failure to pay the rents, he would be required to evict the property. Mere non-payment of the lease amount would not constitute a valid cause of action to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff did not issue the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent (plaintiff in the suit) filed counter counter-affidavit and opposed the application. 7. The Trial Court, by order dated 27.01.2025, dismissed the application. 8. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that there is no cause of action to file the suit and hence, the plaint, in O.S.No.3 of 2022, is liable to be rejected. 9. Page 3 of 6 SRS.J C R.P.No.861 of 2025 The point for consideration is : 10. “Whether the order dated 27.01.2025 in I.A.No.268 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam suffers from irregularities?” In Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success 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. 11. In Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: 12. “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. ” In Kamala Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa^, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that only the averments in the plaint would be relevant for invoking Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the said principle in Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Others'* and held that no 14. (2004) 9 see 512 : 2003 See OnLine Se 1295 (2020) 7 see 366 : (2020) 4 See (eiv) 128 ; 2020 See OnLine Se 562 (2008) 12 see 661 : 2008 See OnLine SO 727 ^ 2023 LiveLaw (SO) 1033 2 M SRS,J C R.P.No,861 of 2025 amount of eVicfence or merits of the controversy could be examined at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Keeping the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, let this Court examine the merits of the order vis-a-vis the application filed by the defendant. 15. Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code envisages the rejection of a plaint in certain circumstances. Clauses (a) to (f) prescribe the circumstances under which the plaint can be rejected. 16. It is a settled principle of law that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court must peruse the contents of the plaint alone, but not the contents of the written statement or other pleadings. 17. In the plaint, it was pleaded about the registration of the agreement and failure of the defendant to pay the agreed amount and, issuance of notice. The suit was filed for eviction and for the recovery of the amount. Para No.4 of the plaint bespeaks the cause of action, and the plaintiff has narrated all the incidents referred to supra. 18. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no clause in the rent deed that the default, if any, enables the plaintiff to file the suit, will be adjudicated in the suit itself. The said contention regarding the issuance of notice, itself, also be decided in the suit, but not at this juncture. The I.A. filed by the petitioner to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner failed to make out a case. In fact, the Trial Court considered all these aspects and passed a reasoned order. 19. 20. Given the discussion supra, since the Trial Court considered all aspects \and passed a reasoned order dismissing the application, the order under revision does not suffer from perversity or illegality and brooks interference of SRS,J C,RP.No.861 of 2025 ■' ■ ■ 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 order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.(with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies YM vna HIGH COURT • -tV ' 1 DATED:09/04/2025 ORDER CRP.No.861 of 2025 ^ IBWNjnW I ^s^oespATC^j^:^ ^3: DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS