THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 2914 of 2011 DATED: 04.11.2011 Between: ADRV. Lakshmi and another …Petitioners And Ch.Mallesh …Respondent HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 2914 of 2011 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.06.2011 in I.A.No.1868 of 2010 in O.S.No.34 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. The Revision petitioners are the defendants 3 & 12, whereas the respondent herein is the plaintiff. The suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the said property from the defendants 2 to 12. A decree for perpetual injunction has also been sought restraining the defendants from making any construction over the suit schedule property or from changing the nature of the property. After receiving the suit summons, the defendants 3 and 12 filed I.A.No.1868 of 2010 to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The said application was dismissed with costs by the Court below by order dated 02.06.2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present Revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the plaint schedule, the suit property is situated in Sy.No.9 and Sy.No.6 of Guttala Begumpet Village, Sherlingampally Mandal, R.R. District. The plaintiff’s case was that he acquired Ac.7.13 guntas of land under an unregistered sale deed dated 03.06.1989 executed by Hyderabad Arch Diocese Society. The said unregistered sale deed was subsequently regularized under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act’) by proceedings dated 13.06.1993. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property forms part of a large extent of Ac.90.00 in Sy.Nos.2 to 9 which was acquired by the plaintiff’s vendor under a Gift deed dated 05.10.1973 and that a layout was also sanctioned in respect of the said land. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.1, a Co-operative Housing Society, which claims to have acquired the adjacent land in Sy.No.11 of Khanamet Village, Sherilingampalli Mandal, R.R. District, had also made the said land into plots. It is alleged that the defendants 2 to 12 who claim to have been allotted individual plots by the 1st defendant-society out of the land in Sy.No.11, had wrongfully identified their plots in the land belonging to the plaintiffs. Hence, the main suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that in the year 1996, when the 1st defendant-society attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and others in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.93 of 1996 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, West and South, R.R. District against 1st defendant-Society. The plaintiff also filed O.S.No.776 of 1998 against the members of the 1st defendant-society in view of the stand taken by the 1st defendant-society that the plots were already sold to its members. Similar suits were filed by the defendants against the plaintiff for perpetual injunction. In the meanwhile, A.P. Wakf Board filed LGC No.151 of 1996 alleging that the plaintiff along with others had grabbed Ac.90.17 cents of land situated in Sy.Nos.1 to 9 of Guttala Begumpet Village. The said LGC.No.151 of 1996 was dismissed on 19.09.2003. Similarly LGC.No.1 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff alleging that the defendants 2 to 12 had encroached upon Ac.1.25 cents of land belonging to the plaintiff was also dismissed by order dated 02.03.2009 observing that the plaintiff and others may approach the civil Court for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. Against the said order though the plaintiff filed W.P.No.11715 of 2009, it was dismissed by order dated 19.11.2009 and therefore the main suit for declaration of title came to be filed in terms of the liberty granted by the Special Court in LGC.No.1 of 2006. The revision petitioners / the defendants 3 and 12 were admittedly parties to LGC No.1 of 2006 as well as W.P.No.11715 of 2009. However the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. was filed by them alleging that the plaintiff had suppressed the fact of pendency of W.A.No.215 of 2002 and W.P.No.26553 of 2003 relating to Wakf Board and filed the main suit on a false cause of action and therefore the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suppression of the pendency of the above said cases by the plaintiff amounts to misrepresentation and playing fraud on the Court and therefore, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition filed by the revision petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY L.Rs. v. JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY L.Rs.[1], K.D. SHARMA v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED & OTHERS[2], MEGHMALA AND OTHERS v. G. NARASIMHA REDDY AND OTHERS[3] and RATHUNATH AND OTHERS v. KEDARNATH[4]. At the outset, it is to be noticed that W.P.No.26553 of 2003 as well as W.A.No.215 of 2002 were already disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by common order dated 03.12.2010. W.P.No.26553 of 2003 was filed by the A.P. State Wakf Board against the order passed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in LGC.No.151 of 1996 dated 19.09.2003. Similarly, W.A.No.215 of 2002 was also filed by the A.P. State Wakf Board against the order in W.P.No.23992 of 1995 dated 04.12.2001. The Division Bench, while disposing of the said matters made it clear that the parties are at liberty to work out their remedies with regard to the declaration of their title in a property in an appropriate forum. It is true that by the date of filing O.S.No.34 of 2010 the said writ petition and writ appeal were pending and the said fact was not mentioned in the plaint. However it was mentioned that the A.P. Wakf Board had filed LGC.No.151 of 1996 and that the same was dismissed. The mere omission to mention about the pendency of writ petition filed against the said order in my considered opinion does not amount to suppression of material facts since W.P.No.26553 of 2003 which related to the proceedings initiated by A.P. State Wakf Board against the plaintiff and his vendor had nothing to do with the claim of the plaintiff against the defendants herein. As per Order 6 Rule 2 of CPC the pleading shall contain only such material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be. While explaining that there is a distinction between material facts and particulars it was held in POPAT AND KOTECHA PROPERTY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASSN.[5] that the words “material facts” show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. It was also added that omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad. In the light of the legal position noticed above, the omission to mention the pendency of W.P.No.26553 of 2003 and W.A.No.215 of 2002 which had nothing to do with the lis between the plaintiff and the defendants cannot be held to be suppression of material facts much less playing fraud on the Court. In fact the suit filed by the plaintiff is in terms of the liberty granted by this Court as well as the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act to work out the remedies with regard to declaration of his title to the property in question. It is also relevant to note that the alleged suppression of material facts is not a ground for rejection of plaint under any of the clauses under Rule 11 of Order 7 of C.P.C. As held by the Supreme Court in POPAT AND KOTECHA PROPERTY’S case (5 supra) the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has to be resorted to when the Court is satisfied that the suit is an abuse of process of the Court in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation. Absolutely no case could be made out to show that this is such an extreme case warranting rejection of plaint at the threshold. Hence the Court below had rightly dismissed I.A.No.1868 of 2010. The Order under revision, which does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law, warrants no interference by this Court. None of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any relevance to the case on hand and the ratio laid down in the said decisions has no application at all to the present case. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 04.11.2011 KLP [1] AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853 [2] 2008 (5) Supreme 287 [3] 2010 (6) ALD 1 (SC) [4] AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1316 [5] (2005) 7 SCC 510