APHC010068282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 353/2025 Between: Simhadri Rama Mohan Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bhemandham Kishore and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following order: The deceased 1st respondent, had filed O.S.No.68 of 2018 before the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against deceased 1st petitioner for evicting the deceased 1st petitioner from Flat No.C4, D.No.16-3- 5, Dayal Apartment, Official Colony, Visakhapatnam. The deceased 1st petitioner, in the plaint, stated that he is the owner and landlord of the said property which had been given on lease to the deceased 1st petitioner and that a quite notice was issued to the 1st petitioner on account of nonpayment of rent and refusal to vacate the premises. 2. During pendency of this suit both the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent had passed away. The 2nd petitioner was brought in as the legal representative of the 1st petitioner. Similarly, the respondents 2 to 4 were brought in as the legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent. 2 3. The deceased 1st petitioner had filed a written statement in the suit and subsequently, the 2nd petitioner, after being impleaded in the suit had filed an additional written statement raising certain additional grounds of defense apart from this, the 2nd petitioner also moved an I.A.No.248 of 2024 before the Trial Court, under Order VII, Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for rejection of the plaint. 4. The case of the 2nd petitioner, in the application, was that the property belonged to one Smt. Hemalatha who was the wife of the 1st petitioner and that she had passed away. The 2nd petitioner contended that the 1st respondent was not the owner of the flat in as much as transfer of title in favour of the 1st respondent had not occurred and consequently, the 1st respondent could not have filed the suit. The 2nd petitioner also took the plea that proper cause of action has not been made out and also that there is no “surviving cause of action”. 5. The respondents 2 to 4 filed their counter affidavits disputing these facts and also contended that the said grounds do not make out a case under Order VII, Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint. 6. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides had held that there is survival of cause of action and the said issue does not amount to a ground which can be raised under Order VII, Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Trial Court also held that the question of whether deceased sole plaintiff alone had locus to file the suit, in view of demise of Smt. Hemalatha, is question for determination in the main suit itself. On the basis of these findings, the Trial Court had dismissed the application, by an Order dated 06.09.2024. 7. Aggrieved by this Order, the 2nd petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 3 8. Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is no material placed before the Court to show that the deceased 1st respondent is the sole legal heir of Smt. Hemalatha and consequently, had to locus to file the suit. He would also contend that there is no pleading to the effect that the deceased 1st respondent is the owner of the property. He would submit that in such circumstances, it is the case fit for rejection. 9. Provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been interpreted, in a threaten of cases. This Court does not intend to burden this judgment with a list of such cases as the law is well settled. The scope of an application under Order VII, Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to verify the pleadings as they stand in the plaint and to ascertain whether such pleadings disclose a cause of action; the relief claim is undervalue; whether the suit appears to be barred by any law, from the statements in the plaint itself. 10. In the present case, the petitioners are seeking a finding by the Trial Court, on facts which are disputed by the petitioners. This exercise would be beyond the scope of an application under Order VII, Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 11. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the Order of the Trial Court and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. BSM 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.353 of 2025 21-02-2024 BSM