ORDER : 1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in IA.No.295 of 2022 in OS.No.4083 of 2021, dated 11.01.2023. 2. Petitioners are the defendant Nos.1 to 8. Respondent No.1 is the respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.9 in IA No.295 of 2022 in OS.No.4083 of 2021. 3.1. Petitioner No.1 has sworn the affidavit in IA.No.295 of 2022 on her behalf and also on behalf of other petitioners-defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8. 3.2. It is stated in the affidavit that respondent No.1-plaintiff is her son, he filed the suit on behalf of her deceased husband- S.Bikshapathi Goud. Bikshapathi Goud has filed suit in OS No.50 of 2019 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge against petitioner No.1 for eviction admitting that she is the General Secretary and Correspondent of suit schedule school. When respondent No.1- plaintiff was never in possession of the property at any point of time, he cannot seek any relief. Plaint establishes that she is in actual possession of the suit schedule school and that respondent No.1-plaintiff has no title, right, interest and she has purchased the school in the year 1996, she is in exclusive possession of the same, one person should not be bothered twice for the same relief. But unfortunately, petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 has been vexed thrice. Respondent No.1-plaintiff and S.Bikshapathi have filed suit in OS No.661 of 2017 for perpetual injunction against petitioner No.1 before XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. In the said suit, petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 was shown as housewife and now in the present suit i.e., OS No.4083 of 2021 she is shown as a Teacher and the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and there is no cause of action to file the suit and the same is barred by law. 3.3. Petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 husband by name S.Bikshapathi died on 14.05.2021 leaving behind herself, two daughters by names S.Saujanya, S.Thejasvi and one son by name S.Sai Ramana (respondent No.1-plaintiff). Respondent No.1- plaintiff is showing the petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 on behalf of her deceased husband-S.Bikshapathi which is barred by law and he has no locus standi to file the suit and prayed to reject the plaint. 4. Respondent No.1- plaintiff is showing the petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 on behalf of her deceased husband-S.Bikshapathi which is barred by law and he has no locus standi to file the suit and prayed to reject the plaint. 4. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed his counter and contended that the suit is filed seeking relief to declare him as absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule school as owner and possessor and the reliefs prayed in the suit with that of suit in OS.No.50 of 2019 and suit in OS No.661 of 2017 are quite different and it has no similarity, it is not hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record observed that “three suits are filed for different reliefs and under different cause of action, whether the doctrine of estoppel is applicable to the present suit can be adjudicated after full-fledged trial”, ultimately dismissed IA.No.295 of 2022. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the learned trial Court is perverse and has committed error in rejecting IA No.295 of 2022 and the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the contentions of the petitioners in proper prospective and passed an erroneous order and failed to note that the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and is barred by law. Counsel to substantiate her contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and Another (1977) 4 SCC 467 , (2) Pandurang Vithal Kevne Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4108 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the relief in respect of CMASR No.12497 of 2023 on 18.09.2025. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Sri hari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others, Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62758350/. 9.1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff’s counsel has filed Memo in USR No.102518 and enclosed copy of the judgment and decree in OS No.661 of 2017, dated 11.09.2023. 9.2. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Sri hari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others, Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62758350/. 9.1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff’s counsel has filed Memo in USR No.102518 and enclosed copy of the judgment and decree in OS No.661 of 2017, dated 11.09.2023. 9.2. It is apt to note here that in rejection of plaint, the averments of the plaint plays an important role while deciding the matter. Hence, the Memo filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff cannot be looked into at this stage. 10. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 11. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? 12. The main contention of the petitioners is that the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and there is no cause of action and the same is barred by law. 13. Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with suit to include the whole claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action and the plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. 14. Order 7 deals with plaint and Rule 11 deals with rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected (a) when it does not disclose cause of action (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 15. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed suit in OS No.4083 of 2021 against the petitioners-defendants and against respondent No.2-defendant No.9 under Section 26, Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The relief claimed in the suit is to declare the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule school and for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners herein), their agents, workman, henchman from interfering into his peaceful possession and enjoyment and for relief of mandatory injunction directing the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 8 to remit and render all the school fees, funds and arrears with the plaintiff. 16.1. 16.1. The plaint averments goes to show that on 10.09.2018 while they were receiving documents from the defendants therein in a suit for perpetual injunction in OS No.661 of 2017 on the file of XXVIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, during that time the plaintiff's father was bedridden and it was informed that there is a change of Members and Executive Committee Members of St.Maria Educational Society by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit vide document dated May, 2018 and the defendant Nos.1 to 8 (petitioners herein) were shown as Members/Executive Committee from 31.03.2018 onwards. The plaint further states that defendant No.3 (petitioner No.1 herein) was a Teacher in the school which was owned and possessed by the plaintiff's father and she used to draw a salary of Rs.150/- per month under Mariamma’s Management. Father of the plaintiff has purchased the rights of the subject school in the year 1996 from one St.Mariamma by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Since then, the plaintiff’s father was managing the same. Plaintiff’s father was removed in the Executive Committee of the subject institution and the defendant Nos.1 to 9 (petitioners and respondent No.2 herein) has not issued any notice to the plaintiff with regard to the deletion or removal of plaintiff’s father name as Correspondent/President of the Institution. Father of the plaintiff has issued notice on 17.03.2021 calling all the defendant Nos.1 to 9 (petitioners and respondent No.2 herein) to re-instate and restore for the post of President and Correspondent of the Institution and the plaintiff has the ownership and title of the suit schedule school after the death of his father on 14.05.2021. 16.2. In the cause of action para it is stated that his father has conferred him all the powers and authority attached to the post of President and Correspondent of the Institution. OS No.661 of 2017 is filed for perpetual injunction by respondent No.1-plaintiff and his father S.Bikshapathi as stated in plaint para No.2. 17.1. In T.Arivandandam 1 , the Supreme Court observed that “if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC”. 17.2. In Pandurang Vithal Kevne2, the Supreme Court observed that “cost to be imposed in unscrupulous litigation for not daring to play with the judicial system”. 18. 17.2. In Pandurang Vithal Kevne2, the Supreme Court observed that “cost to be imposed in unscrupulous litigation for not daring to play with the judicial system”. 18. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of the record or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner : See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 19. Srihari Hanumandas Totala3 deals with Section 11 of CPC (resjudicata) and further held that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit. 20. Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole & Others Vs. Rohit Enterprises & Others, Special leave to Appeal Civil No.16809 of 2025, dated 17.11.2025, the Supreme Court observed that “it is well settled that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for non-suiting a plaintiff”. 21. On reading of the entire plaint, it is evidently clear that the cause of action for the suit arose in the year 1996 when the father of the plaintiff by name S.Bikshapathi Goud has purchased the rights of the school from St.Mariamma who was managing the school then and also when there is a change of Members and Executive Committee Members of the school by defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 31.03.2018 and also when the father of the respondent No.1-plaintiff died and conferring all the powers on the respondent No.1-plaintiff. 22. The decisions cited by the petitioner’s counsel are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply. 23. Scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and passed a reasoned order by rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for rejection of plaint and there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 24. Petitioners have not made out any case, hence CRP is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 25. CRP is dismissed with costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.