ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy district in I.A.No.746 of 2023 in O.S.No.77 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri Pramod Maligi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Vijay Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.77 of 2023 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District against the defendant for cancellation of registered Sale Deed vide document No.2633/2022 dated 24.11.2022 and for perpetual injunction. 5. The defendant entered appearance and filed an application vide I.A.No.746 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of cause of action for filing the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of application, it is averred that a suit for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration is not maintainable; that there are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining sale deed and as per the recitals of sale deed, entire sale consideration was received by the plaintiff and therefore, sale deed cannot be cancelled in the light of settled principle of law; that plaint does not disclose any cause of action for filing the suit and the same is barred by law and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 6. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application and contended that application is not maintainable and the same has been filed only to delay the court proceedings and that cause of action for filing the suit is clearly described in the plaint; that defendant failed to pay total sale consideration and the cheque issued by him was dishonored and even after issuance of legal notice, defendant failed to pay the cheque amount, therefore, plaintiff was compelled to file a suit. It is further contended that subject sale deed was executed in pursuance of the Agreement of Sale dated 16.08.2022, but the defendant did not pay the full sale consideration as agreed upon in the agreement of sale and that the sale deed was executed believing the words of defendant that he would pay the remaining sale consideration at a later date, for which he has issued a postdated cheque, however, said cheque was returned unpaid on presentation. It is further contended that it is settled principle of law that when a sale deed is obtained by playing fraud and without paying total sale consideration, such sale deed is void and the same is liable to be cancelled and that the cause of action is question of law and fact, which cannot be decided at threshold unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted and therefore, application is misconceive and is liable to be dismissed. 7. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.10.2023, dismissed the application with an observation that perusal of the plaint discloses many contentions issues which prima facie found the basis of cause of action to maintain the suit and that plaint averments clearly make out a case including cause of action. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision is filed. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that trial Court failed to appreciate the pleas and contentions put-forth by the petitioner in the application for rejection of plaint and erroneously dismissed the application. He further submitted that as per the recitals of sale deed, entire sale consideration was paid and the trial Court failed to appreciate the said fact and also settled principle of law that suit for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration is not maintainable and thus, committed error in rejecting the application. He would further submit that no cause of action has arisen for the plaintiff for filing the suit and that the present litigation is nothing but a vexatious one and has been filed only to frustrate the rights of the petitioner and, therefore, trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through Legal Representatives and others, (2020) 7 SCC 366 in support of his contention. 10. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through Legal Representatives and others, (2020) 7 SCC 366 in support of his contention. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would submit that trial Court, on duly considering the contentions raised in the affidavit as well as submissions made by both the counsel, has rightly dismissed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with a well reasoned order of the trial Court. He would further submit that application has been filed only to protract the matter and plaintiff made out a clear case for cancellation of sale deed and that the cause of action for filing the suit has also been clearly mentioned in the plaint and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 11. As per the averments in the plaint, the defendant is engaged in real estate business and he approached the plaintiff for purchase of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.94/V/UU and Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.94/AA1 of Ramdasapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the Agreement of Sale was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant, however, defendant failed to pay the agreed sale consideration; that plaintiff agreed to register the land in part wise in favour of defendant to the extent of the amount paid by defendant; that since the defendant has not paid the agreed amount within the time, plaintiff refused to execute the sale deed and that defendant got issued a legal notice dated 28.06.2022 and thereafter, the parties entered into another Agreement of Sale dated 16.08.2022 on the same terms and thereafter, plaintiff executed registered Sale Deed vide document No.2074/2022 in favour of the defendant in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.94/V/UU/1 on receipt of full sale consideration. 12. It appears that defendant requested the plaintiff to execute the sale in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.94/AA/1, for which he agreed to pay Rs.40,00,000/-, which is available with him and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.66,50,000/- after one month, for which cheque No.001458, dated 24.12.2022 was issued and accordingly, plaintiff executed the registered Sale Deed vide document No.2633/2022 dated 24.11.2022 in favour of the defendant in respect of the said land, however, the cheque bearing No.001458 for Rs.66,50,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank was not mentioned in the sale deed. It further appears that when the cheque bearing No.001458 was presented for encashment, the same was returned on 20.01.2023 with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’. 13. It is the specific contention of plaintiff that defendant issued cheque towards payment of above sale consideration, however, instructed his banker to stop the payment and thus, defendant has played fraud and got registered the sale deed document No.2633 of 2024; that plaintiff filed the complaint against the defendant for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of N.I.Act for dishonor of the said cheque vide STC-NI.No.180/2023 pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. Since, the sale deed was obtained without paying the full sale consideration, the said sale deed is not valid and does not give effect, and therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed as well as perpetual injunction. 14. Perusal of the record would disclose that plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed Doc.No.2633/2022 dated 24.11.2022 on the ground that full sale consideration was not paid as agreed to by the defendant and that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud. Record would also disclose that cheque dated 24.12.2022 for Rs.66.55,000/- issued by the defendant was dishonoured on presentation with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’ and the plaintiff filed a complaint under NI Act which was registered as STC.NI.No.180/2023 and specific allegations are made in the plaint that defendant had obtained the sale deed by playing fraud on the plaintiff. 15. It is the specific case of the petitioner/defendant that suit for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration is not maintainable in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dahiben case (supra), wherein it is held that suit for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of non- payment of sale consideration is not maintainable and at the most, the plaintiff can only seek for recovery of sale consideration. 16. In the present case, it is the specific case that plaintiff/ respondent that defendant had obtained sale deed by playing fraud and the cheque issued for balance sale consideration was dishonoured and complaint under N.I.Act has also been filed. 17. Plaintiff filed the suit seeking two reliefs i.e., 1) for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.11.2022 and 2) for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. 18. 17. Plaintiff filed the suit seeking two reliefs i.e., 1) for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.11.2022 and 2) for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. 18. It is appropriate to refer to latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India and another v. Smt. Prabha Jain and others , [2025 SCC OnLine Special Court 121] , wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “24. Even if we would have been persuaded to take the view that the third relief is barred by Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, still the plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. In the case on hand, the first and second reliefs as prayed for are clearly not barred by Section 34 of the SARAFAESI ACT and are within the civil Court’s jurisdiction. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. 19. Admittedly, suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.11.2022 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and even if relief for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration is not maintainable, there cannot be partial rejection of plaint in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India (supra). Further, plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale deed not only on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration, but also on the ground of fraud, which can be decided only after full-fledged trial. 20. In view of foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court by exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.