APHC010418672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2119/2025 Between: 1. AIRBNB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, REGUS GRANDEUR OFFICE, CADDIE COMMERCIAL TOWER, AEROCITY, NEW DELHI 110 037 ...PETITIONER AND 1. GODA SURYA NARAYAN, S/O LATE SRI GODA VENKATA NARASIMHA MURTY, RESIDING AT GROUND FLOOR, D. NO. 9-30- 4, BALAJI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 003, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. GODA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O LATE SRI GODA VENKATA NARASIMHA MURTY, RESIDING AT FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR, D. NO. 9-30-4, BALAJI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 003, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. RENU GUPTA, W/O GODA VENKATA RAMANA, RESIDING AT FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR, D. NO. 9-30-4, BALAJI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 003, ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 toleased to allow fins Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Impugned Order dated March 26, 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 3028 of 2023 in Original Suit No. 144 of 2023 delete the Petitioner from the array of parties in Original Suit No. 144 of 2023, pending before the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, 2 Visakhapatnam, in accordance with the principles of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 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 pleased to stay the proceedings in Original Suit No. 144 of 2023 along with the operation of the Impugned Order dated March 26,2025, passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 3028 of 2023 in Original Suit No. 144 of 2023 And pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S RAJAN 2. K B RAMANNA DORA 3 The Court made the following Order: The 1st respondent had filed O.S.No.144 of 2023, against the respondents 2 & 3 and the petitioner herein, before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. This suit was filed for recovery of possession from the respondents 2 & 3. One of the pleadings in the plaint was that the respondents 2 & 3 had leased out this property, in some form, to the petitioner herein. On that basis, the 1st respondent sought the following relief against the petitioner herein:- e) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from listing the schedule-B property for the activity of letting out rooms including without limitation refrain from posting any references to the schedule -B property by removing all references of the schedule-B property from their website. 2. The petitioner had approached the Trial Court, by way of I.A.No.3028 in O.S.No.144 of 2023 Under Order-I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short <the Act, 1908=] praying that the petitioner, who is described as defendants 3 & 4 to be struck off from the suit as they had been wrongly joined as defendants. The petitioner contended that the arrangement between the petitioner and the respondents 1 & 2 was not that of a lease agreement but only that of an intermediary who was assisting the respondents 1 & 2 in obtaining paying guests, on temporary basis, to utilize the property in question. The petitioner also contended that the platform on which the property was listed, was maintained by its parent organization which was a company incorporated in the republic of Ireland and that any relief sought 4 against the petitioner, would be infructuous as the petitioner was not capable of complying with any such direction. 3. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court, by an Order, dated 26.03.2025, on the grounds that there was an admission by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 1 & 2 is that of a lease and also on the ground that a relief is sought against the petitioner as such, the petitioner cannot be struck off from the array of the defendants. 4. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Though, this Court is not in accord with the findings of the Trial Court, the present Civil Revision Petition would have to be dismissed on a different ground. 7. The pleadings in the plaint are to the effect that the petitioner, who is described as defendants 3 & 4, had an arrangement with the respondents 1 & 2 herein, in the nature of a lease over the property and that the petitioner was maintaining a website on which the property was listed for hiring for interested tourists and visitors to Visakhapatnam. The petitioner disputes all these facts and contends that the website on which the property is listed is not maintained by the petitioner and that the petitioner does not have any arrangement in the nature of a lease with the respondents 1 & 2. 5 8. These are facts which require to be proved, in the course of a trial before the Trial Court. It would not be permissible for the Trial Court to look into the documents, without such documents being marked as evidence, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Evidence Act. Any such exercise by the Trial Court, would result in the Trial Court taking a decision without the documents, relied upon by the Trial Court, being proved and exhibited in accordance with the law. 9. Further, an analogy can be drawn from the provisions of the Order-VII Rule-11 of CPC, wherein the rejection of a plaint can be taken up only on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and no extraneous material can be looked at for deciding whether the plaint deserves rejection or not. To the mind of this Court, the present application is in the nature of an application for rejection of plaint rather than deletion of parties under Order-I Rule-10(2) of CPC. 10 In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, this would not preclude the petitioner from raising all these contentions before the Trial Court and the observation of the Trial Court that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 1 & 2 is in the nature of a lease, would not bind the Trial Court, in the main suit. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. BSM 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2119 of 2025 17-10-2025 BSM