ORDER : T. VINOD KUMAR, J. 1. Since these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit being O.S.No.784 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, at Medchal, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. C.R.P.No.1071 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2023 in I.A. No.873 of 2022 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’). 3. Whereas, C.R.P.No.1109 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2023 in I.A.No.231 of 2022 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code. 4. Heard Sri. V.V. Raghavan learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 5. The Petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit filed by the Respondent herein for declaration and injunction. 6. In the said suit, the petitioners herein had filed an interlocutory application numbered as I.A.No.231 of 2022 seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that it was barred by law under Section 24 and 28 of the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Apartments Act’) read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act, 1872’) and section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act, 1963’) 7. Whereas, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.873 of 2022 seeking for amendment in the prayer portion in paragraph 20(a) of the plaint as under: “20(a). to declare that the Plaintiff alone is entitled to use and park his vehicle in Schedule B Parking Slot No. 12 in Elite Residency, Dollar Hills, Pragathi Nagar Mandal, Bachupally, Medchal – Malkajgiri District.” 8. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, held that a reading of the plaint clearly reveals cause of action and right to sue of the respondent herein. The Trial Court further held that the question whether mentioning about selling the car parking area/slot in the sale deed of the respondent herein contravenes the provisions of the Telangana Apartments Act and also whether it comes under a void contract cannot be decided at the threshold and can only be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial. Holding so, the court below dismissed the interlocutory application. 9. Holding so, the court below dismissed the interlocutory application. 9. While deciding I.A.No.873 of 2022 filed for amendment of the plaint, the Trial Court observed that the issues were yet to be framed and that the suit was at the stage of hearing under Section 89 of the Code. The Trial Court further held that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit as it only sought to insert a prayer in a suit filed for declaration and injunction. Holding so, the Trial Court allowed the interlocutory application observing further that ‘no great irreparable loss would be caused’ as the defendants would get an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff. 10. These revision petitions are preferred aggrieved by the said orders of the Trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein would contend that as per section 24 of the Apartments Act, sale of parking area in an apartment complex is prohibited; and that such act is punishable with an imprisonment upto one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.50,000/- or both; that a sale which is prohibited by law is a void contract under the Act, 1872; and that a negative declaration cannot be sought for under Section 34 of the Act, 1963. Thus, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Papaiah Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors , [ AIR 1997 SC 2676 ] and Narayanamma & Anr Vs. Govindappa & Ors , [ (2019) 19 SCC 42 ] , it is contended that the suit filed by the respondent herein is barred by law. 12. So far as the application filed for amendment of plaint is concerned learned counsel for the petitioners herein would contend that, since the plaint itself is barred by law under the Apartments Act, the Trial Court erred in allowing the proposed amendment. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent herein by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association , [ (2005) 7 SCC 510 ] , had contended that contravention of Section 24 of the Apartments Act, is at best a violation of law, and that such a violation cannot be equated as being a prohibition to file a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code. State Bank of India Staff Association , [ (2005) 7 SCC 510 ] , had contended that contravention of Section 24 of the Apartments Act, is at best a violation of law, and that such a violation cannot be equated as being a prohibition to file a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code. Therefore, it is contended that the issue of inclusion of the parking slot in the recitals of the sale deed can be decided after full fledged trial. 14. I have taken note of the contentions urged. 15. At the outset it is beneficial to note that the power of rejection of plaint is conferred on the Courts to ensure that meaningless and abortive litigation are prevented from occupying the time of the Court ( See: Azhar Hussein vs. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 (supp) SCC 315 : AIR 1986 SC 1253 ) 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors , [ (2003) 1 SCC 557 ] , held that the Court while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code has to only consider the averments in the plaint and that the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. The Central Bank of India and Ors , [ AIR 2020 SC 2721 ] , held that the pleadings in plaint ought to be read as a whole without compartmentalizing, isolation, dissection, inversion of the language in the plaint, in order to ascertain its true meaning. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors , [ (2006) 3 SCC 100 ] held that so long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination, the Court cannot reject the plaint at the threshold merely because it is of the opinion that the plaintiff may not succeed in his case. 18. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kasani Narasimhulu Vs. Sathagowni Srinivas Goud and Ors , [MANU/AP/3405/2013] , held that since the rejection a plaint denies the entry of a citizen into the Civil Court, the power under Order 7 Rule 11 has to be exercised carefully and cautiously. 19. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Sathagowni Srinivas Goud and Ors , [MANU/AP/3405/2013] , held that since the rejection a plaint denies the entry of a citizen into the Civil Court, the power under Order 7 Rule 11 has to be exercised carefully and cautiously. 19. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead), by Legal Representatives , [ (2020) 16 SCC 601 ] , held that the averments in the plaint are germane to decide the question of whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether it is barred by law. The Apex Court further held that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law would always depend upon the facts of the case. The relevant observations are as under: “6.7. In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (supra), this Court has observed and held as under: 7. The plaint can be rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the Defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the Defendant for rejection of the plaint. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the Defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the Defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” 20. In the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors , [(2020) 16 SCC 366] , it was reiterated that if the allegations in the plaint show a prima facie cause of action, the Court cannot further enquire into the truth of such allegations. The Apex Court further had also reiterated that the suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when the defendant in clear and unequivocal terms threatens to infringe such a right. The relevant observations are as under: “12.7 … In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. MANU/SC/7671/2007 : (2007) 5 SCC 614 the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation . It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. 14. … A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, MANU/SC/0612/1991 : (1991) 4 SCC 1 held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the Plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. 14. … A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, MANU/SC/0612/1991 : (1991) 4 SCC 1 held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the Plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the Defendant against whom the suit is instituted. 21. The facts at hand shall be examined in the light of the aforesaid position of law. It is the case of the respondent herein that his sale deed includes a Parking Slot. From a reading of the Apartments Act, it is seen that parking slots form part of common areas of a building. Further, the Apartment Act also provides for a creation of ‘limited common areas’ which can be utilized by some owners to the exclusion of others. Whether the parking slot mentioned in the respondent’s recitals forms a part of a common area or a limited common area cannot be ascertained at pre-trial stage, without adducing evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that on a complete reading of the plaint without addition or subtraction of words (See: Popat and Kotecha Property’s case (supra) ), it cannot be said that the alleged violation of Section 24 of the Apartments Act, would act as a bar against filing the suit for it to be thrown out in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code. 22. Therefore, since a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because a defendant claims that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief (See: Gurdev Singh Vs. Harvinder Singh , [MANU/SC/1685/2022 : S.L.P(C).NO. 19018/2022 dated – 09.11.2022] ), this Court is of the view that Trial Court had rightly dismissed the underlying application. 23. So far as the application for amendment of plaint is concerned, admittedly the issues in the plaint are yet to be framed and the suit is the stage of Section 89 of the Code. 19018/2022 dated – 09.11.2022] ), this Court is of the view that Trial Court had rightly dismissed the underlying application. 23. So far as the application for amendment of plaint is concerned, admittedly the issues in the plaint are yet to be framed and the suit is the stage of Section 89 of the Code. That apart from a perusal of the plaint this Court is of the view that the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit. 24. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders do not merit interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 25. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed. The orders dated 27.02.2023 in I.A. Nos.231 and 873 of 2022 in O.S.No.784 of 2021 are sustained. 26. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.