Allowed

Smt. Manjeeth Kaur v. Mr. Sardar Haricharan Singh

Telangana HC4 Jul 2025CRP/2178/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of a plaint at the SR stage in a suit to cancel a registered sale deed. The High Court held the trial court could not reject the unnumbered plaint suo motu by going into merits, set aside the order and directed the court below to entertain the suit if otherwise in order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 03.04.2025 rejecting the plaint in O.S.(C.F.)No.2551 of 2024 set aside; trial court directed to entertain and number the suit if otherwise in order; no costs.

Smt. Manjeeth Kaur Vs Mr. Sardar Haricharan Singh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2178 OF 2025

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of lhe bonstitution of^{lndia againstthe Order dated} 03.04.2025 Passed in U/R O.S.No. ol^{2024 (C.F No.2551of 2024)on the file of} the Court of the Principal Senior Civil^{Judge at Karimnagar}

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . Smt. Manjeeth Kaur, W/o.^'Late Sri Puran Singh, Age 67 years' OccHousehold, Rio. H.No.2-3-47, Kaman^{Road, Karimnagar-}

¶10

Smt. Jaspal Kaur, Wo. Sri Nirapjith Kaur,^{Age 48 years, Occ- Teacher,R/o.} H,No.5-1-320, Hyderabad. Gowliguda, Siklands,

¶11

Smt. Navaneeth Kaur, Wo- Bupender Singh,^{Age 44 yea$, Occ- Household,} R/o. Plot No.64, Bharath Ratna Colony,^{Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad}

¶12

Sri. Jagpal Singh, S/o. Late Sri Puran Singh,^{Age 39 years, Occ- Household,} R/o. H.No.2-347, Kaman Road, Karimnagar.

¶13

...PETITION ERS/PLAI NTIFFS

¶14

AND

¶15

Mr. Sardar Haricharan Singh, S/o. Late^{Tara Singh,Age 59 years, Occ-} Business, R/o, H,No.2-4-150, Sikhwadi,^Karimnagar.

¶16

...DEFENDANT

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay} all further^{proceedingsin E.P. No.2 ot 2014 in O.S. No.9 of 2005 on the file of the} principal District Judge at Karimnagar, including registration of sale deed and delivery of^{possession, pending disposalof the main Civil RevisionPetition.}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI N LAXMAN} Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN} CIVTL^{REVISI ON PETITIONNo.2l78 of 2{125}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

tleard Sri^{N.Laxman, learned counseI for petitioners'} 2 tlris Civil^{RevisionPetition is filed under Article 221 of'}

¶23

theConstitutionoflndiachallengingtheorderdatcd 03.0:1.2025^{passed by the Principat Senior CivilJudgc'} Karirnrragar,^{in C.F.No'255l of 2024'}

¶24

[)etitioners^{herein filed theaforesaid suitltl} O.S.(C.F.)No.2551^{of 2024against respondentto declarethc} registered^{sale deed bearing documentNo'10123 o1' 20 l9'} clatecl 01.09.20^{19 executed by Sri Sardar Puran Singh and} Surendcr^{Kaur in t'avour of Sardar Haricharan Singh as illegal'} r.rulI and^{void, it is not bindingon the petitioners - plaintifts'}

¶25

L'irla^{(Jrdet dated 03'04'2025'learned PrincipalSenior} Civil Judge,^{Karimnagar, rejectedthe plaint' Chaltengirlg the} saitl order,^{petitionersfite<t the presentCivil Revisitln Petition}

¶26

¶27

lit.,.l c l< P \o^{2 178ot} 2025

¶28

In the plaint itself,^{petitioners herein havespecifically}

¶29

contended that they l.rave right^{over the suit schedule property.} Rcspondent - defendant is distant^{relative of' late} Sri^S.Arrrar Singh, who is the original owner^{of the property. Late Sri} S.Amar Singh is the^{great great grandfather o1'petitioncrs 2 to} 4. Therefore, respondent herein had^{obtair.redthe aforesaid} registered sale deed bearing document^{No. l0l 23} of²⁰¹⁹ dated 03.09.2019. Petitioners sought to^{dcclarethe said} document as null and void. They^{have also further contended} that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.l97 of^{20 l3} against respondent and 9 others seeking^{partitionand separate} possession of the suit schedule property.^'l'he sald suit^was disrnissed on 03.12.2024 by the learned Principal^District Judge, Karminagar. Petitioners 2 and 3^{are taking steps to} preler an appeal challenging the said decree and.iudgrnent

¶30

lt is also further contended by^{the petitioners herein that} respondent herein filed O.S.No.9 of 2005^agair.rst the^said Sardar Puran Singh and his father, namell', Sardar^Datrna

¶31

¶32

Kl-.., CliP\o2i78oI2o2l

¶33

/-1

¶34

Singh and another^{lor specific performance ol contract o1 sale'} dated 28.04.200,1 in^{respect of the very samepropertyThe} said suit uas dccreed on^{15.04.2008.Feeling aggrieved by thc} same, Sardar Purau singh^{had preferredan appealilr} A.S.No.6tt.l of 2008. The^{said appealwas partll'allou'ed'} Therealier, respoudent^{- defendantfiled ExecutionPetition} ufulc E.P.No.2 ol 2014^{and the same is pending' ln the said} executiotr^{pctition,plaintiffNo.4 received summonsin March'} 2024. fl'rcrclbre,^{petitiorlers came to know about the said} registercd sale deed bearing^{documentNo.l0l23 of 2019,} dated 03.09.20 19.^{Thereafter, they have filed the aforesaid suit} in O.S. (('.1:.) No.255l ol^{2()24 to declare the aforesaidsale} deed as uulland^void.

¶35

l. Vidc order dated 0-1.04.2025,^{learned trial Court rejected} the said plaint holding that^{petitioners/plaintiffsare claiming} right ovcr the suit^{scheduleproperty throughSardarPuran} Singh, who^{has already executed an agreement of sale dated} 28.04.2004 in^{f'avourof the defendant, the said agreementol}

¶36

¶37

KL. J C R I')o^{2178oi 2025}

¶38

sale was^{confirmed by the trial Court in O'S'No'9of 2005 and} decree in the^{said suit was upheld by AppellateCourtvide} A.S.No.684 of^{2008. PetitionerNos'2 and 3} -^{plaintil'i Nos'2} and 3 started^{secondround of litigationby titing suit vide} O.S.No.197^{of 2013 which was dismissed on 03'12'2024'} Respondent^{herein is defendantNo'10 in O'S'No' 197 of 2013} .lhercfore, without seeking relief of binding nature of document i.e.,^{registeredsale deed bearing document} No.l0l23 of^{2019, dated 03'09.2019in O'S'No'197 of 2013'} without seeking^{leave of the Courtunder Order llRule 2 of} C.P.C. to raise^{the defence of the binding naturc of the} document in^{subsequent suit i.e., O'S'No'197 of 20 l3 rvhich} was dismissed,^{petitioners cannot file the present sult'}

¶39

Thus, taking^{into considerationthe totality ol'the facts} and circumstances^{of the case, pleadings, docunrents and} plaint, learned trial^{Court rejectedthe plaint opinirrg that the} present ptaint^{is clearly barred by Order II Rule 2 o1'CI'P'C'as} we ll as lirnitation.^{Learned trial Court also placed relianceon}

¶40

¶41

l(L J C R t'\o?l:ilol 2O2r

¶42

¶43

of thc^{I{on'ble SuPremeCouft in} three Judgments Revanasiddappa^{uttd attttlher v' Matlikariun" Sa'anpllKaur} others2^antl Anand^{v. Prttduntan Singh Chundhokand} Datiben^{Valiibhai and othets v'Praiapati} Kotlorhhai Kschr(tbhai^{snd unother't'}

¶44

g. Perusal of^{the record would revealthat the suit schedule} property^{in O.S.No' 197 ol'20 I 3 liled by petitionerNos'2 and3} is House^{Nos.2-l-'16arrd} 2-3-47, admeasuring^{860 square} yards sittrated^{at Kamarr Road, KarimnagarMunicipality'The} schedule^{propert) irr rcgistcrccl sale deed bearingdt>cument} No.10123^{ol 2019, dated 03'09'2019 is also same including} the boundaries.

¶45

As^{discussecl srrTrra'petitioner Nos'2 and 3 filed the} aforesaid suit^{in O.S.No'197 of 2013 seeking partitionof the} said property,^{the satlrc was dismissed'According1o them'}

¶46

'^{Ciril AppeulN,r.l3-ll 'l -'01 I} 'lccr'lt^{'l 'rrr 0l 0q'l0ll'} [.eave^{Petition(c)No ']?794 ofl0l6} r Civil Appeal No. or :rr:: fu,,.i,rc,,,,, "iSp".irr decided on 18.01^l0ll. ic.A.No.l.l29l oll0l-1 dccitl"'d on ll ll l0ll'

¶47

¶48

t.l-..1 C.R P \o 2l7tl ol )O2r

¶49

they are taking steps to^{prefer an appcal against the said decree}

¶50

and^judgrnent.

¶51

I l. lr is the specilic contention^{of the petitioners that thcy} carne to know about the said^{registered sale deed bearing} document No.l0l23l20l9,^{dated03.09.2019onreceipt of}

¶52

notice in Ir.P.No.2 of^{2014 in March,} 2024.There^{are specific}

¶53

pteadings to the said effect in^{the plaint}

¶54

tt is apt to note^that O.VII^{Rule I I of CPC, deals with}

¶55

rejection ol plaint, on the^{followinggrounds:-}

¶56

I l. Rejection of plaint.

¶57

I he pluint shall bc^{rcicctc-d in thc lbllorvingcascs-}

¶58

(a) rrherc it rloc: trot disclosc a cilttsc of actitln:

¶59

(h) rrhcrc tirc re lie l clairned is^{undcrvalLted-andthe plaintil'i. on heirrg} rcquilctl lr tlle^{( ()urt1()} corrcct^{thc raltutit'n iritltina tiltlc to lrc lirctl} br tlrc⁽ ottrt. tails^{lo do so:}

¶60

(r) \ hcrc thc rclrcf clainred is propcrll'^{value-d.but thc plaintis rclttrttetl} upon pxpcr irrsulllcicnth^{stampcd,and the plaintill. on beir.rglctluirctl} l.!\ lhc^{( (]r.rrt} ro strppl;- the^{reqrrisite stalllp-pap.rlvithin a timc to be} lircJ br the⁽ otrrt. lails^{ttr do str:}

¶61

(rI) rrhcrc the :Lril lppears liom the statemcnt^{in the plaint to be barled} b_r ln_r larr:

¶62

l'roriderl rhirt tltc tirne Iired^{bi' the Cotrrl ltrr the correctitttl ol lhc} r ulrriltion or sttl)pl\ ine^()l lhc rcquisitc^{stall]p-llapcrshall not hc cxteLldcd} Lrl)lcss tlrc^{( orrrt- lirr rc{lsons to bc tccotclcd. is safisflcclthlf thc pltintilt}

¶63

¶64

KL_. .l C R P No 2l7a oi2O2i

¶65

\ras prc:cnterl br ltnr citttse^()l'Jt'l c\cePttoll.ll^{naturetbmr conectitrglhc} valLration^()r supl)l\ing thc tct;tLi'iLe^{starnp-pap!-r-zrs the casetnay lrt"} rritlrin thc tintc llretl Lrr rhe^('trtrrl atltl litat^{retusal to extenti suchlime} uoLrlti c:tLtsc rlrr e ittiLr.tiec t,r thc^pllrirrtiil.

¶66

I 3. It is settlcd^{lari' that thc trial Couftcan exerciscthe power} under 0.VIt Rule ll ol'Cl'C^{at any stage of the suit even befbre} registering the^{plaint or alier issuingsummonsto the defendantat} any time before conclusion of^{trial. Power underthe said provision} can be exercised both at^{thrcshold of the proceedings, and in} absence of any statutory^{restriction, at any stageof the subsequent} proceedings. Hou'evcr.^{preliminary objection should be raised at} the earliest. Thc saicl^{principlewas also laid down in Vithalbhai} (P) Ltd. vs. Union Bank of Intliar. In^{paragraphNo.8 of the} said^judgment, the Apcx Court^{held as follows:-}

¶67

It is apt to note that trial Court^{haspower to rejectthe plaint} suo-moto at anv stagc.^'l'he said^{power,though legally pennissible} an^judicially t'ecognized, is to he cxercised^{with cautionand onlyin} the cases where the del-ect is patent, incurable^{and discernable frorn} the plaint itsel{' without lequiring any enquiry^{into the disputed} facts.^'lhe trial courl is not only elnpowered but^{is also under a duty}

¶68

'^{(zoo5)+ scr.- ; li}

¶69

¶70

I\L, J C R P.\o^2178of2025

¶71

¶72

to consider^{the appticabilityof O'VII Rulet Iof CPC at the} threshotd^{stage, includingprior to registration or numberingof the} plaint and^{even belore issuanceof suumonsto the defendant'}

¶73

In M/s.^{Patil Automation Private Limitedand others vs'} Rakheja^{Engineers Private Limiteds in paragraphNo'68' the} Apex Court^{heldas fbllows:-}

¶74

''68. On a considcration^{of the schemeof the OrdersIV' V and Vll} of the Codc^{of Cir,'ill'roccdure'we arrive at the followingconclusions:}

¶75

(A) A suit is^{commenced by 'presentationof a plaintThe date ol' the} presentation^{in terms of Section 3(2) of the Limitation Actis the date of} presentatiorl^{lbr the purpose of the said Act By virtue of OrderIV Rule} t(3). institution^{ol the plaint' howcver, is completeonly when the plaint} is in contbnnitl-^{rvith the requircmentof Order VI and Order VII'}

¶76

(B) When the courl^{decidcs the questionas to issueof summonslJndet'} Order V Rule^{I. rvhat the coutl must consider is whethera suit hasbcen} dull institutcd.

¶77

(C) Ordcr VII Rule^{I I doesnot provide that the courtis to discharge its} duty oi rejecting^{the plaintonly on an application'OrderVII Rulc11 is'}

¶78

in lact- silent^{about any suchrequirementSince summonis to be issued} in a duly institutcd^{suit. in a casewherethe plaint is bared Under Order} VIt Rule ll(d),^{thc stagebcgins at that time when thc courtcan reiect} the plaint^{Undcr Order VII Rule I 1' No doubt it would take a clearcasc} where thc^{court is satisficdfhe Courthas to hear the Plaintifl belbre it} invokes^{its porver besidesgiving reasons Under OrderVII Rule 12' tn a} clear^case. "r'here^{on allegations in the suit, it is found that the suitis}

¶79

' ArR^lo22scl18.18

¶80

¶81

KL, J (l Ii P No 2l 78 oi 2025

¶82

barred by any law. as would bc the case. rvhcre the plaintiff in a suit under the Act does not plead circumstances to take his case out oi.the requirernent ol Secrion i2A. rhe plaint should be rcjected without issuing summons. Undoubtedly. on issuinq slunmorls it will bc alq,ays open to the Dclendant to make an application as ucll Ljnder Order VII Rule I l. In olher words, thc pouer tJnder Order VII Rule I I is ar,.ailable to the couft to be excrcisec{ suo lnotu. (Sec in this regard. the judgment olthis Court in Madiraju Venkata Ranrana llaju (supra).

¶83

tn Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs. pedclireddigari

¶84

Ramachandra Reddy6, in paragraph No.l4, Apex Court held as

¶85

follows:-

¶86

"24. Ordinarily. an application for rejccrion of clection petition in limine, purportedly under ortier 7 r{urc l I ior non-discl.sure oIcause of action, ought to procced ar thc tluesholcl. [ror. it has to be consirlercd only on the basis of institutional del'ects in the clection petition in reference to the grounds specilicrl in clauscs (a) to (l) of Rule ll. Indeed, non-disclosure ol' cause o[' action is covered by. clause (a) therein. Concededly, Order 7 CpC generalll,.deals with the institution of a plaint. It delineates thc rcquirements regarding the particulars to be contained in thc plaint. relicl'to be speciticalll stated, for reliel. to be founded on separate grounds, proccdure on admitting plaint. and includes return of plaint. Thc re.jection of plainr lollows the procedure on admitting plaint or evcn before admitting the same. if the courl on presentation of the plaint is ol'the view that the same does not ftrll the statutory and institutional requirements relerrcd to in clauscs (a) to (f) ol Rule I l. 1'he pou.cr bestowed in rhc court in terrns ol Rulc I I nray also be exercised by the court on a lbnral application movcd by the

¶87

uroq 14 SCC I

¶88

¶89

[1..] C R.P.\o 2Ila ol 202r

¶90

defendant aftcr being scrvcd^{with the summons to appear beforethc} Court. Bc that as it mar'. the application^{under Order 7 Rule 1l desen'es} considcration at the thrcshold.^"

¶91

(emPhasis suPPlied).

¶92

ll . ln Selvaraj and othcrs^{vs. Koodankulan Nuclear Power}

¶93

Plant India LimitedT in^{paragraphNo.29, thc Apex Courlheldas}

¶94

follows:-

¶95

''29. To surn up. the Cottrt Inal rcject thc plaint bcfbre numbering and entering it in the Register of'Strits.^{if fiom a readingof the plaint, it is} seen that thc suit is barrcd^{b1 atrv lau. or if it suffersfromany} proccdural inlirn.ritl. adumbrated^{supra. fhe Court' at that stage' cannot} and is nor erpected to conduct^{a roving enquiry into the mcrits ol- the} matter by tcsting the corrcctlless ol^{the plaint-avermcntseven prior to its} institution." (emphasis supplied)

¶96

ln Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai^{Kalyanji Bhanusali8, Apex} Court held that the powcr conf'erred^{on the trial court under O.Vll} Rute 1l ol CPC. to terminate^a civil^{actionis, however, a drastic} one. and the conditions enumcratcdⁱⁿ O.VII^{Rule 11 of CPCare} required to be strictly adhered^{to. In exercisc of powerunderthe} said proviso, the Courl would^{determineif the assertionsmade in} the plaint are contrary to statutory^{law, or juridical dicta,for}

¶97

'^{(zozI ) + c'rc539:SCC onLineMad25 l4}

¶98

t 2020 scc onLine sc -i6l

¶99

¶100

Il-,] c R^I \o -t r 7a^(,I 20.)5

¶101

¶102

deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint^{at the thresholdis} made out.

¶103

t 9. 1'hus, Supreme Courl consistently held^{that the porver undel} O.VII Ilulc 1l can be exercised suo-rnoto^{evcn bcfbre surlmons} are issued or the plaint is registered, provided^{the det-ect is evident} frorn the plaint itself. The aim is to^{preventrnisuse of.ludicialtirre} and protect defendants from frivolous^{litigation.Therefbrc, while} the porver is broad, it must be used with care. Onlf^incurable defccts. those that are patent and^{jurisdictional} -iustifl^re.iection Procedural lapses like undervaluation or deficient^{Court l-ee may bc} rectified. But where the plaint discloses no cause ol^{action or is} barred by statute. the court is duty bound to reject^it.

¶104

20 ln the light of the aforesaid principle, coming^{to the l-acls of} the present case, the learned trial Court^{cannotre.lect the plaint} on the albresaid grounds. Learned trial Court^{lailed to corlsider} the aforesaid facts that the suit schedule^propefty ln O.S.No.l97 of 2013 and the suit^{schedule property in the} aforesaid unregistered suit is one^{and the same. Petitioner} Nos.2 and 3 herein are claiming^right over^{the said property.}

¶105

¶106

KL, J C R I')No 2178 of2025

¶107

2l . As discussed supra, the learned trial Court rejected the plaint without numbering it at the SR stage

¶108

It is apt to notc that learned trial Court rejected the plaint at the SR stage holding that the petitioner filed the present suit without seeking the reliel o1' the binding nature of the document i.e. registered sale deed bearing document No. 10123 of 2019 dated 03.09.2019 in O.S.No.l97 of 2013 and without seeking leave of the Court undcr Order ll Rule 2 of CPC to raise the defence of the binding nature of the document in subsequent suit, thc paftirion suit vide O.S.No.l97 of 2013 which was dismissed on contest. Thus, the suit is barred by limitation vide Order II Rule 2 of tlPC

¶109

As discussed supra, it is the specific case of the petitioner herein that thel, are takirrg steps to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.197 of 2013 and that they came to know with regard to the subject registered sale deed only on receipt of notice in E.P.No.2 of 2014 in March, 2024. Therefbre, they have llled the present suit lbr

¶110

13 h ! .r ( Ir l'\o lliS,,f20I)

¶111

cancellation ol the said registered sale deed. Withor-rt considering the said aspects, learned trial Court re.iected thc plaint at SR stagc.

¶112

I-carned trial Court placed reliance on the albresaid judgrnents under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. It is relevant to note that O.tl of CPC deals with frame of suit and Rule 2 dcals with suit to include the whole claim and it savs even, suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintilf is cntitlcd to make in respect of the cause of action, but the plaintilT rnal' relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. Thus, O.ll Rule 2 of CPC is dirccted securing an exhaustion ol thc relief in respect ol'a cause of action and not to the inclusion in one and thc sanre action of different causes of action, even though thel' may' arise from the same transaction. Cause o[ action in both tlrc suits rnust in substance be identical, bar of subsequent suit in respect of any of reliefs pertaining to same cause ol action which had been omitted in previous suit. Provisions of O.ll Rule 2 bars the remedy of the plaintiff, therefbre, must bc

¶113

¶114

KL, J ( R l, \o 7l7ll of 2025

¶115

strictly construed. Therefore, it is not the duty of the^trial Court to go into the merits of the case^{at tl.re admission stage. It} shall consider the contents of the plaint and docurrrents filed along with the plaint.

¶116

If the suit filed by petitioners is otherwise in order^like payment of Court fee, documents, signaturcs etc., the learned trial Court has to entertair.t and^ttLtmber it. On^issuance of notice, if defendants files an application^{under OrderVlt Rule}

¶117

I I of C.P.C., it is for the learned trial Court to consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. But trial Court cannot reject the plaint at SR stage going into^rnerits of^the case on its own. Thus, the impugned ordcr is illegal and contrary to the procedure under law laid down by the Apex Court.

¶118

In the light of the same, this Civit Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 03.04.2025^passed in O.S.(C.F.)No.2551 of 2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Further, learned Principal Scnior Judge,

¶119

(I-. J L F I\0'l/8,) 2O2l

¶120

¶121

Karirnnagar, is directed to^{cntertainthe suit,if tl.re same is}

¶122

othern,ise in ordcr.

¶123

Conscquerrtlv,^{rttiscellaneous applications.ilan)}

¶124

pendirtg, shall stand closed.^{Thereshallbe no order as to costs}

¶125