IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2962 of 2010 Between: Mohd. Kareemuddin and others .. Petitioners AND Reparthi Srinivas .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 05-07-2010 in I.A.No.501 of 2010 in O.S.No.103 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, by which the petition requesting to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the defendants was dismissed. The material papers disclosed that the suit was filed by the respondent herein for a permanent injunction against the revision petitioners herein in respect of a shop/mulgi bearing Municipal Door No.7-1-95/1 of Siddipet Town, claiming the respondent to be the tenant of Mohd. Akbar Ali since 2005 with the possession of whom the defendants are trying to interfere. The contesting defendants questioned the alleged possession of the respondent herein or his alleged landlord and claimed Mohd. Akbar Ali to be never the owner or possessor of the suit mulgi. They claimed that Abdul Quader was the original owner of the house property bearing No.6-2-45 and 7-1-89 to 95 and there was no mulgi with No.7-1-95/1. The dispute between the shop owner of the mulgi to the west of the mulgi of the defendants and the defendants led to the foisting of a false case at the instance of Akbar Ali and in fact an earlier suit O.S.No.24 of 2006 filed by one Mohd. Ghulam Mohiuddin was dismissed for default. The defendants, therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit with costs. While so, the defendants filed this petition contending that any mulgi as described in the plaint schedule is never in existence and the plaintiff failed to show any cause of action as to how he came into possession of such a mulgi and consequently, the plaint ought to be rejected. The plaintiff resisted the request claiming that the allegations made in the plaint alone have to be considered in construing the existence or otherwise of the cause of action for the suit and as he categorically pleaded in the plaint his tenancy under lease from Mohd. Akbar Ali and his consequential possession, he has every right to maintain the suit. He also claimed that Cr.No.68 of 2010 was registered by Siddipet Town Police Station on his complaint and he also filed copies of the third party affidavits along with the plaint along with the copies of the earlier litigation, which show that the plaint is not one liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC"). The trial Court passed the impugned order referring to the rival contentions and the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and observed that the allegations in the plaint alone have to be considered for deciding whether the plaint discloses any cause of action. On that premise, the trial Court went on to analyze the allegations in the plaint as disclosing a cause of action, while noting that any dispute about the door number of the suit mulgi cannot lead to any conclusion that there was no cause of action. The dispute about the identity of the shop was held to be not leading to any situation of the applicability of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was also opined by the trial Court that the absence of a lease deed between Mohd. Akbar Ali and the plaintiff or the non- filing of any document in that regard maybe factors that have to be considered either in the interlocutory application for an interim injunction or at the time of final disposal of the suit and cannot be made a ground for rejection of the plaint. The defendants challenged the said order herein contending that the failure to furnish correct boundaries of the suit property and the correct door number and the non filing of the documents relating to the suit property should have led to acceptance of the request for rejection of the plaint. Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The point for consideration is whether the plaint is liable for rejection at the inception under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? Order VII Rule 11 CPC enumerates the different contingencies, which may lead to rejection of a plaint and out of the different situations, it is only clause (a) that is relied on by the defendants for seeking rejection of the plaint herein on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The plaint, when looked into in isolation without referring to the pleas raised by the defendants, does not appear to disclose that it by itself has no cause of action. The plaintiff claimed to have obtained the suit mulgi through Mohd. Akbar Ali from 2005 and obviously claims that a mulgi as described in the plaint schedule is in existence and was given to him on lease. His claim of running “Sree Ram Selections Readymade Cloth Shop and Kids Wear” in the premises since 7-6-2010 and his allegations of interference by the defendants with his possession before inauguration of that shop can by no means be considered to be not disclosing a cause of action against the defendants. Whether such a shop really exists and is under a lease, whether such a landlord has really any right to give such a lease, whether any such possession was really interfered with by the defendants etc., are questions, which have to be gone into and decided in the suit on merits and not as a ground for rejecting the plaint at the threshold. Similarly, the plaint itself did not claim the lease between Mohd. Akbar Ali and the plaintiff to be in writing and any non-filing of a registered lease deed could not have resulted in the plaint’s rejection at the inception. While the conclusions of the trial Court in this regard cannot, therefore, be open to be interfered with, it has to be, however, clarified that the specific contentions raised by the defendants about the existence of any shop/mulgi as described in the plaint schedule, the non-identifiability of any such shop/mulgi with reference to the description made in the plaint etc., have to be gone into and decided in the suit on merits. Similarly, whether the alleged landlord of the plaintiff has any interest to be leased out to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is ever in possession, which could have been interfered with by the defendants are also questions to be decided in the suit on merits including the effect of presence or absence of a lease deed between Mohd. Akbar Ali and the plaintiff. These questions have to be decided uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order or this order and they are left open to be considered by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity to both parties during the trial of the suit. Subject to the said observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-07-2010 Ksn