THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5577 of 2009 ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.08.2009 in I.A. No.2857 of 2008 in O.S. No.1037 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, whereunder and whereby petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondent in spite of service of notice. 3. The respondent herein filed Original Suit NO.1037 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy under Section 26, Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying (a) to restrain petitioners/ defendants from constructing the cellar in violation of existing building rules and the sanction granted to the them; (b) to fill up the excavation made in the adjacent plot to the extent other than the columns by consolidation to safeguard the structure stability of the plaintiff’s building, and (c) to award costs of the suit. The trial Court has taken the suit on file and issued summons to the defendant. Thereafter, the defendants filed the present petition to reject the plaint stating that no cause of action arises for institution of the suit, which was dismissed by the trial Court. 4. The first defendant filed written statement in the suit stating that he is constructing the building in accordance with the building permission granted by the municipal authorities and therefore the plaintiff has no right to obstruct the construction being made in accordance with the building rules, except for easementary rights; that the relief in the suit is not for grant of easementary right in favour of the plaintiff, and that the relief sought for is to restrain the defendants from constructing cellar in violation of the building rules and to fill up excavation made to adjacent plot; that, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendants encroached into his site and therefore his only grievance is construction of cellar in violation of the building rules. 5. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kamalamma & another v. Srirangam Subba Rao & another,[1] wherein it is held thus: “We are clearly of the opinion that the Act {Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, (Act II of 1956)} does not confer any rights, express or implied, against the neighbours who propose to construct buildings or construct buildings in breach of the building rules. The action against defendants 1 and 2 is, therefore, misconceived.” 6. The grievance of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit is that cellar is being constructed in violation of the building rules. An alternative remedy is available to the plaintiff under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, to make a representation to the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, even if the entire allegations in the plaint are accepted to be true and correct, they do not constitute any cause of action to grant the reliefs sought for in the suit in view of the ratio laid down in Kamalamma’s case (1 supra). Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside, and the petition filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint, stands allowed. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 07.12.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5577 of 2009 07.12.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5577 of 2009 07.12.2010 Between: M/s. Capital Fortunes Private Ltd., & another …Petitioners And M.C. Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd …Respondent [1] 1973 ALT 8