INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESHATAMARAVATI

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICEHARINATH.N

CIVILREVISIONPETITIONNOs.1209&1210OF2022

%09.04.2026

C.R.P.No.1209OF2022

Between:

1.KARRISAMBAIAH,,S/O.LATENAGENDRAM,AGEDABOUT36

YRS,OCC-S.0RAILWAYEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO-5-19-17,

ITHANAGAR,TENALITOWN,GUNTURDISTRICT-522201.

2.SMT.MEDIDASUMATHI,,W/O.PRABHUDAS,AGEDABOUT41

YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,R/OTALAYAPALEM,THULLURUMANDAL,

GUNTURDIST-522503.

3.ARGELASUBHASHINI,,W/O.SUBBARAO,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO-7-20-293,13THLANE,SARADA

COLONY,GUNTURCITY-522002.

4.SMT.JALASWAPNA,,W/O.RAJESH,AGEDABOUT32YRS,OCC-

HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO-10-141,KOPALLEGUDIVADAVILLAGE,

TENALLIRURALMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522307

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1.BELLARNKONDANARASIMHARAOPLAINTIFF,S/O.LATE

NAGESWARARAO,AGEDABOUT75YRS,OCC-EX-SARPANCH

OFVENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,

THULLURUMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503

2.SMTKARRIRANIDEFENDANTNO1,W/O.LATENOVAKU,AGED

ABOUT34YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,RIO.VENKATAPALEM

VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DIST-522503

(RESPONDENTNO.2ISTHEFORMALPARTYASPERCOMMON

ORDERINI.ANOS.700/2019AND772/2019IN0.SNO.35/2019

DT.16.03.2022ONTHEFILEOFSR.CIVILJUDGECOURT,

MANGALAGIRI.HENCENOTNECESSARY)

...RESPONDENT(S):

CounselforthePetitioner(S):

1.PHANITEJACHERUVU

CounselfortheRespondent(S):

1.DODDALAPRUDHVITEJA

C.R.P.No:1210OF2022

Between:

1.SMT.KARRIRANI,W/OLATENOVAKU,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,

THULLURUMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503.

...PETITIONER

AND

2

1.BELLAMKONDANARASIMHARAO,S/O.LATENAGESWARARAO,

AGEDABOUT75YRS,OCC.EX-SARPANCHOFVENKATAPALEM

VILLAGE, R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE, THULLURU

MANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503.

2.KARRISAMBAIAH,S/O.LATENAGENDRAM,AGEDABOUT36

YRS,OCC.S.0RAILWAYEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.5-19-17,

ITHANAGAR,TENALITOWN,GUNTURDISTRICT-522201.

3.SMTMEDIDASUMATHI,W/O.PRABHUDAS,AGEDABOUT41

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/OTALAYAPALEM,THULLURUMANDAL,

GUNTURDIST-522503.

4.ARGELASUBHASHINI,W/O.SUBBARAO,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO.7-20-293,13THLANE,SARADA

COLONY,GUNTURCITY-522002.

5.SMTJALASWAPNA,W/O.RAJESH,AGEDABOUT32YRS,OCC.

HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO.10-141,KOPALLEGUDIVADAVILLAGE,

TENALLIRURALMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522307.

...RESPONDENT(S):

CounselforthePetitioner:

1.PHANITEJACHERUVU

CounselfortheRespondent(S):

1.DODDALAPRUDHVITEJA

<Gist:

>HeadNote:

?Casesreferred:

1.CivilAppealNo.4835of2023,decidedon01.08.2023

2.CivilAppealNos.7630-7631of2019,decidedon26.09.2019

3.CivilAppealNo.7835of2014,decidedon20.08.2014

4.(2007)15SCC52

ThisCourtmadethefollowingCommonOrder:

3

THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICEHARINATH.N

CIVILREVISIONPETITIONNOs.1209&1210OF2022

%09.04.2026

C.R.P.No.1209OF2022

Between:

1.KARRISAMBAIAH,,S/O.LATENAGENDRAM,AGEDABOUT36

YRS,OCC-S.0RAILWAYEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO-5-19-17,

ITHANAGAR,TENALITOWN,GUNTURDISTRICT-522201.

2.SMT.MEDIDASUMATHI,,W/O.PRABHUDAS,AGEDABOUT41

YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,R/OTALAYAPALEM,THULLURUMANDAL,

GUNTURDIST-522503.

3.ARGELASUBHASHINI,,W/O.SUBBARAO,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO-7-20-293,13THLANE,SARADA

COLONY,GUNTURCITY-522002.

4.SMT.JALASWAPNA,,W/O.RAJESH,AGEDABOUT32YRS,OCC-

HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO-10-141,KOPALLEGUDIVADAVILLAGE,

TENALLIRURALMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522307

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1.BELLARNKONDANARASIMHARAOPLAINTIFF,S/O.LATE

NAGESWARARAO,AGEDABOUT75YRS,OCC-EX-SARPANCH

OFVENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,

THULLURUMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503

2.SMTKARRIRANIDEFENDANTNO1,W/O.LATENOVAKU,AGED

ABOUT34YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,RIO.VENKATAPALEM

VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DIST-522503

(RESPONDENTNO.2ISTHEFORMALPARTYASPERCOMMON

ORDERINI.ANOS.700/2019AND772/2019IN0.SNO.35/2019

DT.16.03.2022ONTHEFILEOFSR.CIVILJUDGECOURT,

MANGALAGIRI.HENCENOTNECESSARY)

...RESPONDENT(S):

CounselforthePetitioner(S):

1.PHANITEJACHERUVU

CounselfortheRespondent(S):

1.DODDALAPRUDHVITEJA

C.R.P.No:1210OF2022

Between:

1.SMT.KARRIRANI,W/OLATENOVAKU,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,

THULLURUMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503.

...PETITIONER

AND

1.BELLAMKONDANARASIMHARAO,S/O.LATENAGESWARARAO,

AGEDABOUT75YRS,OCC.EX-SARPANCHOFVENKATAPALEM

4

VILLAGE, R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE, THULLURU

MANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503.

2.KARRISAMBAIAH,S/O.LATENAGENDRAM,AGEDABOUT36

YRS,OCC.S.0RAILWAYEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.5-19-17,

ITHANAGAR,TENALITOWN,GUNTURDISTRICT-522201.

3.SMTMEDIDASUMATHI,W/O.PRABHUDAS,AGEDABOUT41

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/OTALAYAPALEM,THULLURUMANDAL,

GUNTURDIST-522503.

4.ARGELASUBHASHINI,W/O.SUBBARAO,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO.7-20-293,13THLANE,SARADA

COLONY,GUNTURCITY-522002.

5.SMTJALASWAPNA,W/O.RAJESH,AGEDABOUT32YRS,OCC.

HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO.10-141,KOPALLEGUDIVADAVILLAGE,

TENALLIRURALMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522307.

...RESPONDENT(S):

DATEOFCOMMONORDERPRONOUNCED:09.04.2026

SUBMITTEDFORAPPROVAL:

HON’BLESRIJUSTICEHARINATH.N

1.WhetherReportersofLocalnewspapersmay

beallowedtoseetheJudgments? Yes/No

2.Whetherthecopiesofordermaybemarked

toLawReporters/Journals? Yes/No

3.WhetherYourLordshipswishtoseethefair

copyoftheorder?

Yes/No

____________________

JUSTICEHARINATH.N

5

APHC010297742022

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH

ATAMARAVATI

(SpecialOriginalJurisdiction)

[3457]

THURSDAY,THENINTHDAYOFAPRIL

TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYSIX

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICEHARINATH.N

CIVILREVISIONPETITIONNOs.1209&1210OF2022

C.R.P.No.1209OF2022

Between:

1.KARRISAMBAIAH,,S/O.LATENAGENDRAM,AGEDABOUT36

YRS,OCC-S.0RAILWAYEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO-5-19-17,

ITHANAGAR,TENALITOWN,GUNTURDISTRICT-522201.

2.SMT.MEDIDASUMATHI,,W/O.PRABHUDAS,AGEDABOUT41

YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,R/OTALAYAPALEM,THULLURUMANDAL,

GUNTURDIST-522503.

3.ARGELASUBHASHINI,,W/O.SUBBARAO,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO-7-20-293,13THLANE,SARADA

COLONY,GUNTURCITY-522002.

4.SMT.JALASWAPNA,,W/O.RAJESH,AGEDABOUT32YRS,OCC-

HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO-10-141,KOPALLEGUDIVADAVILLAGE,

TENALLIRURALMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522307

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1.BELLARNKONDANARASIMHARAOPLAINTIFF,S/O.LATE

NAGESWARARAO,AGEDABOUT75YRS,OCC-EX-SARPANCH

OFVENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,

THULLURUMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503

2.SMTKARRIRANIDEFENDANTNO1,W/O.LATENOVAKU,AGED

ABOUT34YRS,OCC-HOUSEWIFE,RIO.VENKATAPALEM

VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DIST-522503

(RESPONDENTNO.2ISTHEFORMALPARTYASPERCOMMON

ORDERINI.ANOS.700/2019AND772/2019IN0.SNO.35/2019

DT.16.03.2022ONTHEFILEOFSR.CIVILJUDGECOURT,

MANGALAGIRI.HENCENOTNECESSARY)

...RESPONDENT(S):

PetitionunderArticle227oftheConstitutionofIndia,prayingthatinthe

circumstancesstatedinthegroundsfiledherein,theHighCourtmaybe

pleasedtopleasedtoallowtheCivilRevisionPetitionbysettingasidethe

impugnedCommonOrderandDecreepassedinI.ANoS.700/2019and

772/2019inO.SNo.35/2019,Dt.16.03.2022onthefileTheSeniorCivilJudge

Court,MangalagiriandconsequentlyallowtheI.ANo.700/2019inO.S

No.35/2019andtherebyrejectthePlaintinO.SNo.35/2019onthefileof

SeniorCivilJudgeCourt,Mangalagiriandpass

6

IANO:1OF2022

PetitionunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated

intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased

pleasedtograntSTAYofallfurtherproceedingsin0.SNo.35/2019onthefile

ofSeniorCivilJudgeCourtatMangalagiri,GunturDistrictpendingdisposalof

CRPintheinterestofJustice

CounselforthePetitioner(S):

1.PHANITEJACHERUVU

CounselfortheRespondent(S):

1.DODDALAPRUDHVITEJA

C.R.P.No:1210OF2022

Between:

1.SMT.KARRIRANI,W/OLATENOVAKU,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE,

THULLURUMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503.

...PETITIONER

AND

1.BELLAMKONDANARASIMHARAO,S/O.LATENAGESWARARAO,

AGEDABOUT75YRS,OCC.EX-SARPANCHOFVENKATAPALEM

VILLAGE, R/O.VENKATAPALEMVILLAGE, THULLURU

MANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522503.

2.KARRISAMBAIAH,S/O.LATENAGENDRAM,AGEDABOUT36

YRS,OCC.S.0RAILWAYEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.5-19-17,

ITHANAGAR,TENALITOWN,GUNTURDISTRICT-522201.

3.SMTMEDIDASUMATHI,W/O.PRABHUDAS,AGEDABOUT41

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/OTALAYAPALEM,THULLURUMANDAL,

GUNTURDIST-522503.

4.ARGELASUBHASHINI,W/O.SUBBARAO,AGEDABOUT34

YRS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO.7-20-293,13THLANE,SARADA

COLONY,GUNTURCITY-522002.

5.SMTJALASWAPNA,W/O.RAJESH,AGEDABOUT32YRS,OCC.

HOUSEWIFE,R/OD.NO.10-141,KOPALLEGUDIVADAVILLAGE,

TENALLIRURALMANDAL,GUNTURDIST-522307.

...RESPONDENT(S):

PetitionunderArticle227oftheConstitutionofIndia,prayingthatinthe

circumstancesstatedinthegroundsfiledherein,theHighCourtmaybe

pleasedtotoallowtheCivilRevisionPetitionbysettingasidetheimpugned

CommonOrderandDecreepassedinI.ANoS.700/2019and772/2019in0.S

No.35/2019,Dt.16.03.2022onthefileTheSeniorCivilJudgeCourt,

MangalagiriandconsequentlyallowtheI.ANo.772/2019inO.SNo.35/2019

andtherebyrejectthePlaintinO.SNo.35/2019onthefileofSeniorCivil

JudgeCourt,Mangalagiriandpass

IANO:1OF2022

PetitionunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated

intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased

7

pleasedtograntSTAYofallfurtherproceedingsin0.SNo.35/2019onthefile

ofSeniorCivilJudgeCourtatMangalagiri,GunturDistrictpendingdisposalof

CRPintheinterestofJustice.

CounselforthePetitioner:

1.PHANITEJACHERUVU

CounselfortheRespondent(S):

1.DODDALAPRUDHVITEJA

TheCourtmadethefollowingCommonOrder:

Dateofreserve :16.03.2026

Dateofpronouncement :09.04.2026

DateofUpload :09.04.2026

8

THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICEHARINATH.N

CIVILREVISIONPETITIONNOs.1209&1210OF2022

COMMONORDER:

1.​ThepetitionershavefiledtheseCivilRevisionPetitions(CRPs)

aggrievedbythecommonorderdated16.03.2022passedbythe

learnedSeniorCivilJudge,MangalagiriinIANo.700of2019andIANo.

772of2019inOSNo.35of2019.Thepetitionersaredefendantsinthe

suitfiledforspecificperformance.

2.C.R.P.No.1209of2022isfiledbytheDefendantNo.1inO.S.No.35of

2019andC.R.P.No.1210of2022isfiledbytheDefendantsNos.2to5

inO.S.No.35of2019.

3.BoththeinterlocutoryapplicationsfiledunderOrderVIIRule11ofthe

CPCseekingtherejectionoftheplaintweredismissedbythelearned

SeniorCivilJudge.Assuch,thepresentCRPsarefiled.Thefollowing

groundsareraisedbythelearnedcounselforthepetitioner;

i.Thenatureofthesuitschedulepropertyhaslostitscharacter

ofassignmentintermsofGOMSNo.41dated17.02.2016,

andtheagreementofsaledated16.01.2016wouldbean

absolutelyVoidandunenforceabledocument.

ii.TheplaintAschedulepropertyisstandinginthenameofthe

mother-in-lawofthepetitioner,whofiledCRP1210of2022

andthatthepropertywouldhavetobepartitionedamongst

thesurvivingfamilymembers.

iii.Theexecutionoftheagreementofsaledated16.01.2016is

alsodisputedbythepetitioners.

iv.Thatthereisnocauseofactionforfilingthesuitandthatthe

suitcannotbetriedondocumentsthathavenoevidentiary

value.

v.Thesuitbasedonavoidagreementofsalewouldbebarred

bylaw.​

9

​

4.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitsthat,evenasperthe

avermentsoftheplaintatpara5,thenatureofthelandwaschangedby

virtueoftheissuanceofGOMSNo.41dated17.02.2016.Itissubmitted

thatthelandformingScheduleAofthesuitschedulepropertywas

assignedland,andthegovernment,byvirtueofthelandpooling

scheme,hasacquiredtheproperty.Itissubmittedthat,bythedateof

executionoftheagreementofsaledated16.01.2016,thelandhas

changeditscharacterfrombeinganassignedland.Itissubmittedthat

theagreementofsalewouldbevoid,asthepetitionerscouldnothave

transferredanyright,titleorinterestintheproperty,overwhichthey

haveneitheranyrightnorpossession.​

5.Itisalsosubmittedthatplaint‘B’schedulepropertyneverexistedon

paperandneverexistedason24.07.2017.Itissubmittedthattherelief

ofspecificperformancecannotbegrantedforapropertywhichdoesnot

existwithdefinedmetesandboundsasonthatdate.​​Thelearned

counselappearingforthepetitionerssubmitsthatthereisnocauseof

actionforfilingthesuitinviewofthechangeofnatureoftheschedule

‘A’property.​Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitsthat,

evenaspertheavermentsoftheplaintatpara5,thenatureoflandwas

changedbyvirtueofissuanceofGOMSNo.41dated17.02.2016.Itis

submittedthatthelandwhichformstheScheduleAofthesuitschedule

propertywasanassignedlandandgovernmentbyvirtueoftheland

poolingschemehasacquiredtheproperty.Itissubmittedthat,bythe

10

dateofexecutionoftheagreementofsaledated16.01.2016theland

haschangeditscharacterofbeinganassignedland.Itissubmittedthat

theagreementofsalewouldbevoidasthepetitionerscouldnothave

transferredright,titleandinterestforthepropertyoverwhichtheyhave

neitheranyrightnorpossession.​

6.Itisalsosubmittedthatplaint‘B’schedulepropertyneverexistedon

paperandneverexistedason24.07.2017.Itissubmittedthattherelief

ofspecificperformancecannotbegrantedforapropertywhichdoesnot

existwithdefinedmetesandboundsasonthatdate.​

7.Thelearnedcounselappearingforthepetitionerplacesrelianceonthe

followingjudgmentsforsubstantiatinghisstandthatthereisnocauseof

actionforfilingthesuitinviewofthechangeofnatureoftheschedule

‘A’property.TheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthematterofYadaiahand

AnrVs.StateofTelanganaandothers

1

.TheHon’bleSupremeCourt

wasdealingwiththeCivilAppealrelatingtonatureofassignmentand

violationofconditionsofassignment.Itwasheldthatthesubjectland

wasnon-alienableandalsoheldthatthetransferoflandsisin

contraventionwiththeprovisionsofA.P.AssignmentLands(Prohibition

ofTransfer)Act,1977.TheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthematterof

Smt.Narayanamma&Anr.Etc.Etc.Vs.SriGovindappa&Ors

Etc.Etc.

2

,TheHon’bleSupremeCourtwhileconsideringthecivilappeal

dealtwiththeissueofanagreementofsalewhichwasrelatingto

1

CivilAppealNo.4835of2023,decidedon01.08.2023

2

CivilAppealNos.7630-7631of2019,decidedon26.09.2019

11

purchaseoflandandthetransactionemanatingthereto.Asaledeed

wasexecutedwithouttheknowledgeoftheplaintiffandthedisputewas

adjudicatedonmerits.TheHon’bleSupremeCourtconsideredthe

issueoffilingasuitforspecificperformanceafteralongdelaywasnot

permissibleandheldthatwhentheplaintiffenteredintoanagreement

withonlyoneoftheco-ownersandwhentheplaintifffailedtoreferany

suitagainstthesaledeedsexecutedinfavourofdefendantstherein

heldthattheplaintiffisnotentitledforthereliefofspecificperformance.

PemmadaPrabhakar&OrsVs.Youngmen’sVysyaAssociation&

Ors

3

,TheHon’bleSupremeCourtwhiledealingwiththeissueof

grantingofthereliefofspecificperformanceoveranagreementofsale

whichwasexecutedbyoneoftheco-sharers,heldthattheagreement

isnotexecutable.

8.ThelearnedcounselappearingfortherespondentNo.1submitsthatthe

applicationsfiledunderOrderVIIRule11arenotmaintainableforthe

simplereasonthattheplaintwoulddiscloseaspecificcauseofaction.It

isalsosubmittedthattherespondentshaveprayedforthegrantof

alternaterelief,asreflectedintheprayersbeforethetrialCourt.Itis

alsosubmittedthattheRespondentwasawareofthechangeinnature

ofthesuitschedulepropertybythedateoftheagreementofsale.

However,theagreementofsalecastsanobligationonthepetitionersto

transferthebenefitwhichhasarisenoutoftheacquisitionprocessof

CapitalRegionDevelopmentAuthority(CRDA)andthealternate

3

CivilAppealNo.7835of2014,decidedon20.08.2014

12

commercialplotallottedbytheCRDAtobetransferredinthenameof

therespondent.Itissubmittedthatwhentheplaintiff'sprayer

categoricallyindicatesthataspecificcauseofactionhasarisen.

9.Itissubmittedthatthecauseofactionisalsospecificallymentionedat

clauseIVoftheplaint,assuch,theclaimofthepetitionersthatthereis

nocauseofactionforfilingthesuitisunfoundedandagainsttherecord

availablebeforethetrialCourt.ItisalsosubmittedthatthetrialCourt

haspassedawell-consideredandwell-reasonedorderwhichdoesnot

warrantanyinterferenceatthisstage.Itisalsosubmittedthattheplaint

issupportedbyvariousdocumentswhichshallbeprovedbeforethe

trialCourt,andatthenascentstage,theattemptofthepetitionersto

scuttlethefulfilmentoftheobligationsoftheagreementofsaleis

detrimentaltotheinterestoftherespondents.

10.Itissubmittedthatasubstantialamounthasbeentransferredtothe

petitioners,andthereisnodisputeonthereceiptoftheamountpaidby

the1strespondent.Itissubmittedthatthegroundsraisedbythe

petitionersforrejectingtheplaintareunavailableandunfounded.Itis

submittedthatOrderVIIRule11oftheCPCspecificallyrequiresthe

non-disclosureofthecauseofactionforrejectingtheplaint.Inthe

presentcase,therespondentNo.1hasspecificallydisclosedthecause

ofactionwithspecifieddatesandevents.Insuchascenario,the

applicationsfiledbythepetitionerswererightlyrejectedbythetrial

Court.

13

11.ThelearnedcounselappearingfortherespondentNo.1hasplaced

relianceonthefollowingjudgmentsinthematterofJageswariDevi

andothersVs.ShatrughanRam

4

,theHon’bleSupremeCourtwas

consideringcivilappealsrelatingtothescopeunderorderVIIRule11(a)

ofCPConnon-disclosureofthecauseofaction.TheHon’bleSupreme

Courtheldthatiftheplaintdoesnotdiscloseanycauseofaction,the

petitionunderOrderVIIRule11(a)CPCwouldhavetobeallowed.The

Hon’bleSupremeCourtalsoheldthatdefectivecauseofactioncannot

beconsideredforrejectingtheplaintatthethresholdbypassingorders

inanapplicationunderOrderVIIRule11(a)CPC.

12.Heardthelearnedcounselappearingforthepetitionersandthelearned

counselappearingforthefirstrespondent.Perusedthematerialrecord.

13.Theshortpointforconsiderationis;

WhetherthecommonorderpassedinI.A.No.700of

2019andI.A.No.772of2019inO.S.No.35of2019deserves

tobeinterferedwith?

14.TheplaintfiledbeforetheCourtofthelearnedSeniorCivilJudgeat

Mangalgiriisperused.ClauseIVoftheplaintwoulddisclosethecause

ofactionbyreferringtovariousdatesandevents.Theprayerinthe

plaintalsodisclosesthattherespondenthassoughtalternativerelief.

Theagreementofsaledated16.01.2019isexecutedonaRs.100/-

stamppaper,andthefirstdefendanthadsignedandexecutedthesame.

15.ThisCourtisnotventuringintodecidingwhetherthe1

st

defendantis

competenttoexecutetheAgreementofSaleorotherwise,asthesame

4

(2007)15SCC52

14

wouldhavetowithstandthetestofscrutinyoffactandlawbeforethe

trialCourt.ThisCourtisalsonotventuringintowhethertheno-objection

executedbytheotherdefendants​,transferringtheirinterestandrights

overtheplaint‘A’schedulelandtothedefendantNo.1,isbindingonall

otherdefendants.ThesewouldhavetobeconsideredbythetrialCourt

afterafull-fledgedtrial.​​Itisneitheradvisorynormandatoryforthe

trialCourtwhileconsideringtheapplicationforrejectionofplainttogo

intotheaspectofadmissibilityorotherwiseofthedocumentsfiledalong

withtheplaint.ItismandatoryfortheCourttoconsidertheadmissibility

andrelevancyofthedocumentswhileconductingtrialanddecidingthe

suitonmerits.

16.ThisCourt,afterperusingtheplaint,isoftheconsideredviewthatthe

plaintiffhasdisclosedthecauseofactionbyreferringtovariousdates

andevents.Thiswouldsufficetorejecttheapplicationsfiledunder

OrderVIIRule11(a)oftheCPC.​ThescopeoftheCourtin

entertaininganapplicationunderOrderVIIRule11ofCPCisvery

specific,anditisasettledlawthatnon-disclosureofthecauseofaction

wouldsufficeforallowingthesaidapplication.

17.Onthefactsofthiscase,thisCourtfindsnogroundstointerferewith

thewell-consideredandwell-reasonedorderpassedbythelearned

SeniorCivilJudge,Mangalagiri,indismissingIANo.700of2022andIA

No.772of2022.Itisleftopenforthepartiesheretotoraiseall

15

contentionsbeforethetrialCourtforsubstantiatingtheirrespective

standsbeforethetrialCourtforadjudicationofthesuitonmerits.

18.Withtheseobservations,theCivilRevisionPetitionsarehereby

dismissed.Thereshallbenoorderastocosts.

Asasequel,miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shallstandclosed.

_____________________

JUSTICEHARINATH.N

Dated:09.04.2026

LRcopytobemarked

B/o.KGM

16

THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICEHARINATH.N

CIVILREVISIONPETITIONNos.1209&1210of2022

Dated09.04.2026

LRCopy

KGM