Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1264 (TS)

Avirineni Jhansi Lakshmi v. Vijayalakshmi 70 MM

2025-10-23

RENUKA YARA

body2025
Order : RENUKA YARA, J. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the order passed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.211 of 2023 in O.S.No.652 of 2023, dated 19.03.2024, wherein, a petition filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Heard M/s. Vankina, Allu & Partners, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. Initially, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.652 of 2023 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.0-12 Gts., in Sy.No.55, situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded by North: Defendant’s land, South: Neighbours house, East: 30 feet wide road, neighbours building and plaintiff’s plot and West: Neighbours houses, without following due process of law. After filing of the said suit, the I.A under revision has been filed to reject the plaint for lack of cause of action. The case of the respondent is that there is no written agreement between the parties to the suit, no deposit or advance payment of any amount to the respondent, fixed amount of Rs.30,000/- is paid by the respondent to the petitioners every month from the year 2013 till August, 2023 without escalation and there is an alleged oral lease which is on month to month basis. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the plaint is carefully drafted to create an illusion of cause of action which needs to be nipped in the bud at the earliest. Further, according to the petitioners, the respondent committed fraud on the Court by suppressing the fact that the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 was filed on 15.09.2023 on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Due to non-working days of Court on Saturday, Sunday and Vinayakachavithi, the matter was heard on 20.09.2023. When the respondent failed to secure ad-interim injunction from the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar on the first date of hearing on 20.09.2023, said suit i.e. O.S.No.614 of 2023 has been withdrawn on 21.09.2023. Due to non-working days of Court on Saturday, Sunday and Vinayakachavithi, the matter was heard on 20.09.2023. When the respondent failed to secure ad-interim injunction from the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar on the first date of hearing on 20.09.2023, said suit i.e. O.S.No.614 of 2023 has been withdrawn on 21.09.2023. Immediately thereafter, the present suit i.e. O.S.No.652 of 2023 was filed with the same contents, same cause of action, same prayer including the typed content on suit valuation but before a District Court. The petitioners pleaded that the conduct of the respondent is highly objectionable as there is an abuse of process of the Court. It is further stated that the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 was withdrawn after first date of hearing i.e. 20.09.2023, on 21.09.2023 even before summons were served on the petitioners. The petitioners have withdrawn the license to respondent to park the vehicles in suit schedule property and in order to circumvent said withdrawal, the petitioner No.2 approached the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special (Mobile) PCR Act, Ranga Reddy District vide O.S.No.616 of 2023 and the matter was first heard on 10.10.2023. On that day, summons in the present suit were received by the petitioners and on enquiry, the objectionable acts of the respondent were discovered. Since the respondent approached the Court with unclean hands by blatant abuse of process of Court, the petitioners prayed that the plaint be rejected. 5. The respondent herein opposed the I.A denying the averments of the petition alleging that cause of action is mixed question of law and facts and until and unless the evidence is adduced by all the partis to the suit, the cause of action cannot be decided. As per counter affidavit in I.A.No.175 of 2023, there is an attempt of forcible dispossession. Withdrawal of a prior suit is not a ground to reject the plaint and suppression of said fact is ground for dismissal of the temporary injunction application but not rejection of plaint. It is admitted that the suit schedule property belongs to the petitioners but the respondent is paying Rs.30,000/- per month on the basis of oral tenancy. There is an interference by the petitioners and therefore, the suit for perpetual injunction was filed. It is admitted that the suit schedule property belongs to the petitioners but the respondent is paying Rs.30,000/- per month on the basis of oral tenancy. There is an interference by the petitioners and therefore, the suit for perpetual injunction was filed. According to respondent, upon filing of O.S.No.614 of 2023, one of the mediator promised that he will get the matter settled only on withdrawal of the suit and basing on the assurance given by the mediator, the respondent herein has withdrawn the suit and when there was an attempt to dispossess the respondent, a fresh suit is filed. The respondent denied having license to use the property of the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 filed O.S.No.661 of 2023 against the respondent on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special (Mobile) PCR Act, Ranga Reddy District-cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge for perpetual injunction alleging that he is in possession of the property and I.A.No.146 of 2023 is filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the alleged possession. Said application was dismissed on contest. Such allegations are of relevance in dismissal of an Interlocutory Application filed seeking temporary injunction but not rejection of plaint. As such, sought dismissal of the petition. 6. On considering the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court held that petition filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of CPC is liable to be dismissed when the plaint does not disclose cause of action but there is a paragraph which discloses cause of action and clause (d) of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC would indicate that the plaint is liable to be rejected when the suit is barred by any law. It is held that the provisions themselves indicate that the plaint is sought to be rejected for illusory cause of action and the said fact cannot be decided at the initial stage of the suit. The case of respondent about filing of O.S.No.614 of 2023 and its withdrawal on assurance given by the mediator and taking advantage of the same, trying to dispossess the respondent from the suit schedule property are facts which are not mentioned in the plaint, whereas the contents of the plaint alone have to be considered for rejection of plaint. Reference is made to the judgment of this Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRS v. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. Reference is made to the judgment of this Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRS v. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. and others {1994 (2) Civil Court Cases 131 (SC)} , wherein, it is held that a litigant is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation and if he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. Basing on the said judgment, the learned Trial Court held that such is not the case of the revision petitioners herein. It is further held that contents of pleadings of both the parties cannot be considered at that stage and it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent suppressed any material fact or document except the non-disclosure of filing of earlier suit. In the earlier suit, the injunction application was not dismissed or rejected. Therefore, held that the suit is not liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. Aggrieved by the said finding, the present Civil Revision petition is preferred. 7. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that a meaningful reading of the plaint needs to be endeavored and not just plain reading of the plaint to ensure no mischief is committed by skillful drafting. Further, there is an error in holding that suppression of material fact is not abuse of process of law which falls under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The filing of prior suit is not disputed by the respondent but an explanation is given in the counter. The two suits are filed with the same cause of action and even after stating the same, the said fact is not appreciated. The petitioners pleaded that the contents of the plaint reveal that the lease is oral on month to month basis and there is a demand for vacating the property since June, 2023. In a suit for eviction on the basis of oral lease, notice period of 15 days is sufficient and in the instant case, the demand was made in the month of June, 2023 and the suit was filed after expiry of three months and therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the suit. In a suit for eviction on the basis of oral lease, notice period of 15 days is sufficient and in the instant case, the demand was made in the month of June, 2023 and the suit was filed after expiry of three months and therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the suit. The respondent did not mention filing of prior suit and withdrawal on account of mediator assurance and said version is a blatant falsity and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected. 8. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is absolutely no cause of action for filing the suit for the simple reason that the tenancy is oral as per the admission of respondent and mere 15 days notice is sufficient for causing eviction. In the instant case, when the plaint is perused, it discloses that the cause of action is based on oral lease between the parties for parking of vehicles in an open place abutting a cinema theatre. As per law, under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, whenever the property is rented on the basis of oral lease, the notice period is 15 days only. That being the case, in the instant case, the plaint itself reveals that a demand was made by the petitioners to the respondent to vacate the suit schedule property in the month of June, 2023. The respondent ought to have vacated the suit schedule property within 15 days from the date of demand for vacating the property. Instead, the respondent continued to over stay even after the expiry of notice period and then approached the Court for grant of perpetual injunction on 15.09.2023 by filing O.S.No.614 of 2023 on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. These facts give rise to an inference that there is an illusory cause of action created when there was no legal right to continue to use the suit schedule property by the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the allegation of interference is pleaded by the respondent without producing any iota of evidence. In O.S.No.614 of 2023, the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar ordered urgent notice on 15.09.2023 upon presentation of the suit and posted the matter on 17.10.2023. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the allegation of interference is pleaded by the respondent without producing any iota of evidence. In O.S.No.614 of 2023, the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar ordered urgent notice on 15.09.2023 upon presentation of the suit and posted the matter on 17.10.2023. Reference is made to the docket order dated 15.09.2023 in I.A.No.131 of 2023 in O.S.No.614 of 2023, which reads thus: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. Admittedly, the petition schedule property belongs to the respondent. The petitioner has not been able to prove a prima facie case in its favour as no rent agreement has been filed to show that the petitioner is a lawful tenant of the respondents. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case dispensing with urgent notice to the other side is not made out and hence, this Court is not inclined to grant an Ad-Interim injunction against the respondents. Hence, issue urgent notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Call on 17.10.2023.” 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that a memo dated 21.09.2023 in O.S.No.614 of 2023 is filed by the respondent to settle the matter by mutual settlement wherein withdrawal of the suit is a pre-condition. The said memo was filed along with a petition under Rule 109(2) of CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE to advance the suit from 17.10.2023 to 21.09.2023. Reference is made to the docket order dated 21.09.2023, which reads thus: “Petition U/R. 109(2) CRP filed by petitioner/plaintiff praying to advance the date of hearing from 17.10.2023 to today for withdrawing suit. Defendants not yet appeared. Allowed.” 11. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by withdrawing the said suit on 21.09.2023, on the very same day, the Court fee is paid afresh by the respondent for filing the present suit in O.S.No.652 of 2023 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, the said suit is liable to be rejected as there is no cause of action. 12. The learned counsel for respondent submitted that the cause of action is disclosed in the plaint and therefore, there is no ground for rejection of the plaint on the said count. Therefore, the said suit is liable to be rejected as there is no cause of action. 12. The learned counsel for respondent submitted that the cause of action is disclosed in the plaint and therefore, there is no ground for rejection of the plaint on the said count. With respect to committing fraud or abusing the Court process, said allegations are denied alleging that in case, there is any flaw in the conduct of the respondent, the same may result in rejection of temporary injunction but cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. It is argued that cause of action is a bundle of facts which has to be ascertained by reading the plaint averments in its totality and the plaint discloses a cause of action. 13. Further, the learned counsel for respondent referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and others v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V.Fortune Express and others , [AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1828] for the proposition that a plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations made by the defendant in his written statement. The issue of whether a plaint discloses cause of action requires determination by the Court and the opinion of the judge that the plaintiff may not succeed, cannot be ground for rejection of the plaint. Further, reference is made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited , [AIR 2025 Supreme Court 849] , wherein, it is held that cause of action for the purpose Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC would mean cause of action which gives occasion for and forms foundation of suit. When said cause of action enables a person to seek larger and wider relief than that to which he limits his claim, he cannot be permitted to recover balance reliefs through independent proceedings afterwards. It is also held that plaint has to be read as a whole to determine applicability of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC for the purpose of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. 14. This Court is conscious of the fact that contents of plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone are to be considered while considering rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 14. This Court is conscious of the fact that contents of plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone are to be considered while considering rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In the instant case, the contents of the plaint and receipt of payment of Court fee for suit in O.S.No.652 of 2023 on 21.09.2023 are considered along with admission of filing of O.S.No.614 of 2023 on 15.09.2023 and its withdrawal on 21.09.2023. The filing of two suits within a span of seven days, payment of court fee on very same day of withdrawal of first suit to file a second suit are considered. This Court did not peruse pleadings of written statement or any other documents filed by the respondents. 15. To ascertain whether there was fraud played on the Court or whether there is abuse of process of Court or creation of illusory cause of action, the sequence of events have to be examined closely. The first and foremost point to be considered is that the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 was presented by the respondent on 15.09.2023 before the VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar along with I.A.No.131 of 2023 seeking temporary injunction, wherein, urgent notice was ordered declining to grant ad-interim injunction on the ground of lack of prima facie case and posted the matter on 17.10.2023. Thereafter, on 21.09.2023, a petition was filed under Rule 109(2) of CRP to advance the matter from 17.10.2023 to 21.09.2023 for withdrawing the suit. The ostensible purpose for withdrawing the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 is mutual settlement between the parties with a pre-condition to withdraw the suit. There is a need to pause at this stage to ponder as to how the petitioners could have imposed a pre-condition for mutual settlement when notice in the suit was not even served on them. Without serving of notice in the suit and without appearance of the petitioners in the suit which is evident from the docket order dated 21.09.2023, there can be no ground to believe imposition of a pre-condition for withdrawal of the suit for the purpose of arriving at mutual consent. This is the first lacuna which gives rise to a serious doubt that the respondent has approached the Court with unclean hands. 16. This is the first lacuna which gives rise to a serious doubt that the respondent has approached the Court with unclean hands. 16. The next instance to be considered is that when the suit is withdrawn on 21.09.2023 ostensibly for the purpose of mutual settlement on account of a mediator approaching the respondent on behalf of the petitioners, why there is a need to pay Court fee by the respondent on the very same day for the purpose of filing the second suit i.e. O.S.No.652 of 2023. It is difficult to conceive of a fact situation where a petition is filed under Rule 109(2) of CRP before 12 Noon on 21.09.2023 to move an out of order and said petition would be adjudicated and put up at around 4 pm. or thereafter in the normal course. The suit is withdrawn between 4 and 5 pm ostensibly for mutual settlement, wherein, withdrawal of a suit is a pre-condition. When the suit is withdrawn just before closing of the Court between 4pm and 5pm, what would be the need for payment of Court fee on the very same day. A question arises as to where was the time gap to negotiate, failure of said negotiations and fresh cause of action i.e. forcible attempt to dispossess the respondent from the suit schedule property to file the second suit on 22.09.2023 i.e. before lapse of 24 hours. In fact, the time frame for fresh cause of action has to be between 5 pm on 21.09.2023 to 12.00 Noon on 22.09.2023. Between this time gap, there should have been a negotiation and attempted dispossession for cause of action to file the second suit. While so, the cause of action in O.S.No.652 of 2023 do not reveal any cause of action on 21.09.2023 which forms the basis for filing the fresh suit on 26.09.2023 by paying Court fee on 21.09.2023 itself. The cause of action paragraph in O.S.No.652 of 2023 reveals that the alleged cause of action arose on 12.09.2023 but not 21.09.2023. The aforementioned fact scenario shows that in all probability, there was no attempt for settlement between the parties and that only for the purpose of abusing the Court process for personal gain, the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 is withdrawn by the respondent for the purpose of filing a fresh suit to make a second attempt at obtaining ad-interim injunction. The aforementioned fact scenario shows that in all probability, there was no attempt for settlement between the parties and that only for the purpose of abusing the Court process for personal gain, the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2023 is withdrawn by the respondent for the purpose of filing a fresh suit to make a second attempt at obtaining ad-interim injunction. Thus, the conduct of the respondent shows a malafide intention. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that an illusory cause of action is by employing clever drafting for abusing the Court process for illegal gain. The fact situation clearly attracts the legal ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal , [ (1977) 4 SCC 467 ] , wherein, it is held as follows: “5. We have not the slightest hesitation on condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly 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 VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. 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 X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them.” 18. To sum up, in the instant case, an illusory cause of action is created in September, 2023 when there was notice of termination of oral lease in June, 2023. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them.” 18. To sum up, in the instant case, an illusory cause of action is created in September, 2023 when there was notice of termination of oral lease in June, 2023. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of CPC for lack of cause of action. Next, there is an attempt at abuse of Court process for illegal gain. When a person approaches the Court with unclean hands, the said matter has to be thrown out at the same instance as per the legal ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in T. Arivandandam case (3 supra). 19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.211 of 2023 in O.S.No.652 of 2023, dated 19.03.2024. Consequently, the I.A.No.211 of 2023 is allowed. The suit in O.S.No.652 of 2023 is rejected. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.