APHC010491512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2687/2024 Between: 1. MARELLA NARASAIAH, S/O. LATE M.CHINNA NARASIMHULU, AGE 81 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. D.NO.14/170, SANGAMPETA, KADAPA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MARELLA RAMA DEVI, W/O. R.VIJAYA KUMAR HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. DOOR NO. 3/1674, RAJA REDDY STREET, KADAPA. RESP0NDENTS.N0.1/RESP0NDENTS.N0.1 IN IA.NO.900 OF 2023/PLAINTIFF IN 0S.N0.67 OF 2023 2. MARELLA NARASIMHARAJU, . S/O. M. NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D.NO.14/170 SANGAMPETA, KADAPA. 3. MARELLA LAKSHMI NARASIMHULU, S/O. NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D.NO.14/170 SANGAMPETA, KADAPA. 4. G ADILAKSHUMMA, W/O. G.MAHESH HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D. NO. 39/587-1, ARAVINDA NAGAR, KADAPA. (RESPONDENT.NO.2 TO NO.4 HEREIN ARE 2 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2687 OF 2024 NOT-NECESSARY PARTIES) RESP0NDENTS.N0.2 TO NO.4 /RESP0NDENTS.N0.2 TO NO.4 IN IA.N0.900 OF 2023/DEFENDANTS.NO.2 TO NO.4 IN 0S.N0.67 OF 2023 ...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 to set aside the Order dated 10.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.900 OF 2023 in 0S.N0.67 OF 2023 on the file of the HON'BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA and consequently, allow the I.A.No.900 OF 2023 in 0S.N0.67 OF 2023 on the file of the HON'BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA and/or pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings in OS.NO.67 OF 2023 on the file of the HON'BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA and/or pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DHEERA KANISHKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. L J VEERA REDDY The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2687 OF 2024 ORDER:- The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10.09.2024 in I.A.No.900 of 2023 in O.S.No.67 of 2023 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for rejection of plaint as it does not disclose the cause of action for filing of the suit. 2. The revision petitioner herein is defendant No.1 and the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and other respondents herein are defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in O.S.No.67 of 2023. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.67 of 2023 for partition of plaint schedule properties into five equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and put her into separate possession and enjoyment and permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants filed their written statement on 30.10.2023. At that stage, the 1st defendant (revision petitioner herein) filed I.A.No.900 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (b) and (d) of CPC, for rejection of plaint, on the ground that it does not disclose 4 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2687 OF 2024 cause of action; the suit is undervalued and that the suit is barred by limitation. Following the principle laid down in Gokari Jagadeshwar v. G.V. Arjun and anothere (2017 (5) ALT 499(DB)) and considering the averments of the plaint, the court below, having held that the cause of action in the plaint has properly been framed and that the other points of bar of limitation and undervaluation of the suit will be decided after a full-fledged trial by adducing proper evidence, dismissed the petition by its order dated 10.09.2024. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the court below grossly erred in various parameters of settled position of law and it ought to have appreciated the petition filed for rejection of plaint. He submits that the provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 have no application to the facts of the case as there is no coparcenary property and that the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties. 5 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2687 OF 2024 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the 1st respondent vehemently submits that the cause of action in the plaint has been properly framed and the order under revision is well justified and prays for dismissal of the revision. 7. The only point that arises for consideration herein is whether the court below is justified in dismissing the petition filed for rejection plaint. 8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) deals with the rejection of a plaint and provides specific grounds on which a court can dismiss it, often at the beginning of the case. The main purpose is to prevent frivolous or meaningless litigation from wasting the court's time and resources. The six grounds include the lack of a cause of action, the suit being undervalued, or being barred by law (e.g., a statute of limitations) 9. It is well settled principle of law that for deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the averments in the plaint alone will have to be taken into consideration but not the pleas taken by the defendants. However, the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised at any stage of the suit. It is a fact that the defendants have already filed their written statement. Having gone through the order under revision, this Court finds that for 6 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2687 OF 2024 deciding the present application, the court below, considered the averments of the plaint and the principle laid down in Gokari Jagadeshwar v. G.V. Arjun and another (2017(5) ALT 499 (DB)), and held that the cause of action in the plaint has properly been framed by the plaintiff. As rightly held by the court below, all the questions as raised by the defendant are mixed question of fact and law, which can be determined comprehensively by adducing cogent evidence after full-fledged trial by both parties but not at the threshold. The findings given by the court below in dismissing the petition are justified and well founded and do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this court in exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit. 10. Therefore, the order dated 10.09.2024 in I.A.No.900 of 2023 in O.S.No.67 of 2023 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, is hereby confirmed. However, as the suit is of the year 2023 and as the defendants have already filed written statements, the trial court shall make every endeavor to proceed with the trial of the suit and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within period of one year from the date of 7 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2687 OF 2024 receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :16.10.2025 LSP 8 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2687 OF 2024 233 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2687/2024 Date :16.10.2025 LSP