APHC010509942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2661/2025 Between: 1. BODDEPALLI JAGANNADHA RAO, S/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED 70 YEARS, RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O HOUSE NO. 2-16-11 /I, STREET NO 1, D.C.C.B COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. NATIVE OF PEDDA VEEDHI, FAREEDUPETA, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. BODDEPALLI KRISHNAVENI, W/O JAGAMNATHA RAO, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 2-16-11/1, STREET NO 1, D.C.C.B COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. NATIVE OF PEDDA VEEDHI, FAREEDUPETA, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 3. BODDEPALLI SUNIL BHARATH KUMAR, S/O JAGANNATHA RAO AGED 42 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 2-16-11/1, STREET NO 1, D.C.C.B COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. NATIVE OF PEDDA VEEDHI, FAREEDUPETA, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. SANAPALA APPALANAIDU, S/O LATE RAMA RAO AGED 64 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 7-1-74, MONANGI VEEDHI, AMADALAVALASA TOWN AND MUNICIPALITY, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MAHAMMAD HANEEF, S/O LATE ABDUL RAVOOF, AGED 65 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO. 12-11-8, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. Page 2 of 9 SRS,J CRP No.2661 of 2025 2. MOHAMMAD SHANWAJ, S/O LATE ABDUL RAVOOF AGED 65, BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO. 12-11-8, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMAD KHADAR ALIASMANSOOR, S/O LATE MD. JAKRIYA AGED 35, BUSINESS, R/O DOOR N0.12-11-6A, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 4. MUJIBUR RAHMAN, S/O MD. ABDUL WAHEED AGED 34, BUSINESS, R/O DOOR N0.12-11-6A, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 5. MOHAMMAD RAVOOF, S/O MD. HASANUJJAMA AGED 28 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O DOOR NO. 12-1 L-(2)-L 1, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 6. MOHAMMAD ADIB HASAN, S/O MD. HASAHUJJAMA AGED 26 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 12-LL-(2)-LL, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 7. MOHAMMAD ARIF REHMAN, S/O ABDUL LATHEEF UR RAHMAN, AGED 40 YEARS. STUDENT, R/O DOOR NO. 9-18-3, GOLCONDAREVU ROAD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 8. MOHAMMAD MADURULLA DODI, S/O MD. HANEEF AGED 28 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O DOOR NO. 8-10-46, G.T. ROAD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 9. SURA BEGUM, D/O LATE WAHEED AGED 40 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 12-11-6, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 10. DILSHAD BEGUM, D/O LATE WAHEED AGED 38 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 12-11-6, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 11. SEEMA TASLEEM, D/O MD. HANEEF AGED 26 YEARS, STUDENT R/O DOOR N0.8-4-53A, G.T. ROAD, SRIKAKULAM. 12. HYDER KHAN, S/O LATE ABDULLAH KHAN AGED 75, NO AVOCATION, R/O DOOR NO. 7-17/93, SAI NILAYAM, OPP. KAKATIYA COLLEGE, SAIBULA THOTA, GONTI VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM. Page 3 of 9 SRS,J CRP No.2661 of 2025 13. BARATAM GEETHA, W/O SHANMUKA RAO AGED 38, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O DOOR NO. 12-9-13B, KAKI VEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 14. BARATAM VISWANADHAM, S/O LATE SEETHAYYA AGED 67, BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO. 12-9-13B, KAKI VEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 15. MUKKALA KLAYANI, W/O KONDABABU AGED 42 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES R/O DOOR NO. 5-8-1/24, PUNYAPU VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN DISTRICT. 16. PYDI RAMA RAO, S/O LATE ADINARAYANA AGED 78, RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O REGULAPADU VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT., 17. PYDI SATYAVATHI, W/O RAMA RAO AGED 56 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O PEDDA VEEDHI, REGULAPADU VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 18. GUDLA PRAMEELA RANI, W/O JAGGARAO AGED 45 YEARS. HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O DOOR NO. 5-6-(2)-32, PUNYAPU VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 19. NANDANA SRIDEVI, W/O SUDHAKAR AGED 27 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O DOOR NO. 7-3-65, KOMATIPETA, PALAKONDA VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 20. ANDHAVARAPU ESWARA RAO, S/O LATE ANDHVARAPU TRINADHA RAO AGED 45 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO 16- 1-101, GUJARATHIPETA, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 21. THAMMANA BHASKARA RAO, S/O LATE VARAHA NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED 44 YEARS, INCOME TAX PRACTITIONER (AUDITOR), R/O DOOR NO. 6-1-57, PALAKONDA ROAD, SRIKAULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 22. BARATAM CHANDRAVATHI, W/O VISWANADHAM AGED 54 YEARS HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O DOOR NO. 12-23-9, KAKI VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 23. KINJARAPU HARI VARAPRASAD, S/O LATE DALI NAIDU AGED 57 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O NIMMADA VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. Page 4 of 9 SRS,J CRP No.2661 of 2025 24. TANGI HARINARAYANA, S/O MUSALINAIDU AGED 54 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. D-2, 1ST FLOOR, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530016. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toPleased may be pleased to set aside the Order in I.A.No 112 of 2025 in O.S.No 16 of 2017 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam Dated 18.8.2025 and pass 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by defendants 23 to 25 and 33, aggrieved by the docket order, dated 18.08.2025, in I.A.No.112 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.16 of 2017 against the revision petitioners and others seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties, as per the Will, to allot 1/3rd share of the plaintiff and put it into separate possession. SRS,J CRP No.2661 of 2025 3. Pending the suit, the revision petitioners/defendants 23 to 35, 33 and defendant No.37 filed I.A.No.112 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground of res judicata. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it was pleaded that the suit O.S.No.16 of 2017 was filed based on a registered Will dated 30.12.2006 said to have been executed by Habi Bunnisa Begum; that prior to filing of O.S.No.16 of 2017, one Nadar Khan, brother of Habi Bunnisa Begum filed a suit O.S.No.94 of 2001 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking partition of the properties mentioned therein; that the said suit was transferred to the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam and renumbered as O.S.No.14 of 2008; that another brother of Habi Bunnisa Begum i.e. defendant No.11 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 filed O.S.No.76 of 2002; the suit was transferred to I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam and renumbered as O.S.No.25 of 2010; that the plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 2017 was arrayed as defendant No.19 in O.S.No.25 of 2010; that the suit O.S.No.14 of 2008 filed by Nadar Khan was dismissed for default and that in O.S.No.25 of 2010 preliminary decree was passed on 07.02.2017. Thus, the suit O.S.No.16 of 2017 is to be rejected on the ground of res-judciata. 5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit opposing the application. 6. The trial Court, by docket order, dated 18.08.2025, dismissed the application. 7. Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court failed to consider the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.25 of 2010, to which the plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 2017 is a party defendant. SRS,J CRP No.2661 of 2025 9. The point for consideration is whether the docket order dated 18.08.2025 in I.A.No.112 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, suffers from any illegality, warranting interference of this Court? 10. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. prescribes a procedure to reject the plaint. “11. Rejection of plaint : - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to eb fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) Where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.= SRS,J CRP No.2661 of 2025 11. It is a settled principle of law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the Court must look into the averments in the plaint alone. In the case at hand, the revision petitioners sought rejection of the plaint on the ground of >res judicata?. Whether the plaint can be rejected on the ground of res judicata is no longer res integra. 12. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat1, the Hon?ble Apex Court summarized the following principles for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C.: 25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to. 25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application. 25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the <previous suit= is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit. 25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the <previous suit=, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused. 13. The same principle was reiterated in Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and another2. 14. Given the above authorities, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of res-judicata merits 1 (2021) 9 SCC 99 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 565 at page 112 2 (2025) SCC Online SC 1425 SRS,J CRP No.2661 of 2025 no consideration since the issue involves consideration of pleadings and evidence in the earlier suits. 15. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in this revision. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 17.10.2025 IKN SRS,J CRP No.2661 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2661 of 2025 Date : 17.10.2025 IKN