APHC010190662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1640 OF 2025 Between: 1. M. VIJAY MOHAN RAO, S/o Meka Subaiah, aged 77 years, R/o H.No. 19-13-11, Old Ponnur, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522124 (died) and rep.by his LRs Petitioner No.2 to 4 2. Smt. Meka Vijaya Laxmi, W/o late Mr. M.Vijay Mphan Rad aged 70 years, R/o H.No. 19-13-11, Old Pohnur, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522124 3. Mr. Meka Kalyan Kumar, S/o late Mr. M.Vijay Mohan Rao aged 49 years, R/o H.No. 19-13-11, Old Ponnur, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522124 ...Petitioners AND 1. NANNAPENENI PRASADA RAO, S/o Late Nannapeneni Ankamma Rao aged 62 years, Occ Director of Digital Factory India Pvt Ltd., R/o H.No. 16, Annammaiah Colony, Near Shivappa High School, Nagaram, Hyderabad-500083 Also R/o Survey No. 147, Besides Kadevi Industry, Annkireddpally, Kesara Mandal, Medchal District-501301 ...Respondent 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.1640 of 2025 The Court made the following ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 03.11.2022 in I.A.No.310 of 2022 in O.S.No.41 of 2017 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 7 and Section 151 of CPC, seeking rejection of plaint. 2. The revision petitioner No.1 is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff. Revision Petitioners No.2 to 4 herein are brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased revision petitioner No.1. Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.41 of 2017 against the defendant/deceased revision petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.21,27,990/- with interest and costs from the defendant, basing on the hand loan for his necessities. The plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- to the defendant on 18.09.2015 through a cheque bearing No.02004105, drawn in favour of the defendant, from his account bearing Account No.690102010001411, Union Bank of India, Ponnur Branch, with an agreement to repay the same with 24% p.a. Thereafter, as the defendant failed to repay the same in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the said amount. The defendant filed his written statement. He also filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking to reject the plaint and dismiss the suit. The Court below, on 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.1640 of 2025 careful perusal of the plaint pleadings and the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, while referring to the provisions of the Order VII Rule 11 CPC, dismissed the petition, holding that the contents of the petition did not come within the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and it did not satisfy any of the clauses of Order VII Rule 11 CPC under which a plaint can be rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is a settled principle of law that in a petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, the basic principle that the court has to look into only to the extent whether the contents of plaint would satisfy any of the grounds provided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and cannot travel beyond than that. 5. It is relevant to refer the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads thus: <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 returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.1640 of 2025 required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be 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= 6. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the jurisdiction under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, is limited only to the extent whether the contents of the plaint satisfy any of the grounds provided under the provision for rejection and not beyond that. If the court satisfies any one of the ground, then the plaint can be rejected. While dealing with the rejection of plaint, the court has to look into the contents of the plaint for satisfying any of the grounds provided under Rule 11 CPC and it has to be exercised its discretion with utmost care and circumspection as the dismissal of the plaint will lead to serious consequences. 7. In the case on hand, a perusal of the plaint pleadings, it appears that the suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.16,00,000/- which was taken as hand loan and the cheque was also issued in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant No.1 and in spite of repeated requests and demands by the plaintiff, the deceased defendant failed to discharge the same, hence the suit was filed. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.1640 of 2025 8. A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant would show that the defendant, while denying the plaint averments, raised certain family disputes between both the parties and some money transactions were took place between them. All these are the matters which will be adjudicated in a roving enquiry after addressing oral and documentary evidence on either side and this court cannot sit as a fact finding court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. A thorough reading of the contents of the petition do not satisfy any of the grounds of Order VII Rule 11 CPC under which a plaint can be rejected. The Court below has elaborately discussed about the scope of rejection of plaint and rightly held that there is every cause of action to file the suit. In the facts and circumstances stated supra, this Court finds no merit to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and the order under revision does not suffer from any serious infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this court, and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 03.11.2022 in I.A.No.310 of 2022 in O.S.No.41 of 2017 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.SUJATHA, J Date: 08.01.2026 NSM/Ksn 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.1640 of 2025 277 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1640 of 2025 Dt.08.01.2026 NSM/Ksn