JUDGMENT Shameem Akther, J. - This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.239 of 2017 in O.S.No.1447 of 2003 by the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the subject application filed by the revision petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint for want of cause of action, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants would submit that the subject suit is not filed within the period of limitation as stipulated under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The allegations made in the plaint are manifestly vexatious, meritless and not disclosing a clear right to sue. Under these circumstances, the Court below ought to have rejected the plaint exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaint is cleverly drafted creating illusion of cause of action and limitation and therefore, it is required to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing so that the bogus litigation would end at the earliest stage. The Court below is unjustified in passing the impugned order. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs, (2019) AIR SC 1430 and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the revision petition as prayed for. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs would submit that the plaint discloses the cause of action and the suit is filed within three years from the date of cause of action as envisaged under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The averments in the plaint are clear and cogent and there is no material suppression of facts. Furthermore, there are no manifestly vexatious allegations in the plaint and the suit is not meritless. There are clear recitals in the suit narrating the circumstances that led to filing of the suit. The Court below is justified in passing the impugned order and ultimately prayed to dismiss the revision petition. Furthermore, there are no manifestly vexatious allegations in the plaint and the suit is not meritless. There are clear recitals in the suit narrating the circumstances that led to filing of the suit. The Court below is justified in passing the impugned order and ultimately prayed to dismiss the revision petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: (i) State of Orissa vs. Klockner and Company and others, (1996) AIR SC 2140 (ii) Bharvagi Construction and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, (2017) AIR SC 4428 (iii) Ashrith Realtors and Developers, Hyderabad and another vs. Capt. Arun Prasad, (2018) 2 ALD 201 5. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination is: "Whether by invoking the provisions under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, the subject plaint can be rejected?" 6. Point: It is apt and appropriate to refer Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as follows: "11. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination is: "Whether by invoking the provisions under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, the subject plaint can be rejected?" 6. Point: It is apt and appropriate to refer Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as follows: "11. 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 written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being 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 sub-rule (2) of rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants is that there is no cause of action and the suit is not filed within the period of limitation. The subject suit is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners/defendants in respect of suit 'C' schedule property admeasuring Ac.1-12gts in Sy.No.358 situated at Chanda Nagar Village, Serilingampally Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. To find out whether there is cause of action and the suit is filed within the period of limitation or not, the averments of the plaint are required to be examined. To find out whether there is cause of action and the suit is filed within the period of limitation or not, the averments of the plaint are required to be examined. If the Court comes to conclusion that the averments of the plaint do not disclose cause of action or the suit is not filed within the period of limitation, it can invoke the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and reject the plaint. 7. In Raghwendra Sharan Singh's case (1 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ defendants, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: "Para 6.2: While considering the scope and ambit of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, few decisions of this Court on Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are required to be referred to and considered. Para 6.3: In the case of T.Arivandandam vs. T.V.Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 , while considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and the decree of the trial Court in considering such application, this Court in Para 5 has observed and held as under: "5. We have no slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful- not formal- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits........" 8. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits........" 8. In Klockner and Company's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while answering the validity of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, held that rejection of plaint is not proper when the Court did not maintain the distinction between plea that there was no cause of action for suit and the plea that plaint does not disclose cause of action. 9. In Bhargavi Construction's case (3 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression 'law' occurring in Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC includes not only legislative enactments but also includes 'judicial decisions of Supreme Court'. 10. In Ashrith Realtors and Developers, Hyderabad's case (4 supra), the erstwhile common High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, while dealing with rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, held that when law clearly says plaint averments alone are decisive, once cause of action is disclosed from plaint averments, whether it is real disclosure or pretended disclosure, it is premature for the Court to go into cause of action. 11. In the instant case, there are specific averments in the plaint that plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are the owners and possessors of the suit 'C' schedule property. The revision petitioners/ defendants have no ownership and possession over the suit 'C' schedule property. The manner in which the plaintiffs became owners and possessors is indicated in different paragraphs of the plaint. Further, in Para 12 of the plaint, it is stated that the defendants and their followers tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit 'C' schedule property. It is also stated that the defendants and their followers forcibly tried to dispossess the plaintiffs on 10.12.2003 from the suit 'C' schedule property. The averments in the plaint are clear and cogent and it does not indicate that it is manifestly vexatious and meritless. The plaint discloses clear right to sue. The decision in Raghwendra Sharan Singh's case (1 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The averments in the plaint are clear and cogent and it does not indicate that it is manifestly vexatious and meritless. The plaint discloses clear right to sue. The decision in Raghwendra Sharan Singh's case (1 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Furthermore, the plaint reflects cause of action to file the suit. The cause of action arose in the year 2003 and the suit is also filed in the same year. Therefore, the suit is filed within the period of limitation as stipulated under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The Court below had elaborately dealt with these aspects and rightly rejected the contentions raised by the revision petitioners/defendants. The findings recorded by the Court below are not perverse and there are no material irregularities warranting interference by this Court. All the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioners do not merit consideration. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Any of the observations made in this order in reaching the conclusions, will not have any bearing over the final determination of the subject suit. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.