IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, :: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2586 OF 2011 Between: Anumolu Nageswara Rao …Appellant A n d Anumolu Krishnamohan and others ...Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2586 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.06.2011 in OS.SR.No.2390 of 2011, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land, which is in 13 items. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant’s father filed the suit O.S.No.54 of 1997, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam for partition and separate possession and after full-fledged trial, the suit was decreed and the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.1251 of 1995 and this Court by judgment dated 07.02.2000 dismissed the said appeal. 4. It is stated that the plaintiff filed C.M.P.No.2166 of 2000 seeking review and the said petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed L.P.A.No.201 of 2001 before the High Court and a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 23.03.2010 referred the matter to Full Bench in view of divergent opinion by different Benches and different High Courts. The plaintiff further pleads that during the life time of defendants’ father he filed LPA.MP.No.1 of 2010 in L.P.A.No.204 of 2001 for an ex parte injunction restraining the plaintiff herein from cutting the trees in some of the items of the schedule land and also filed an application for appointment of advocate-receiver to manage the ‘A’ schedule properties. Alleging that defendants are making hectic efforts to take possession of the plaint schedule properties and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, the suit for injunction is filed. The trial Court rejected the plaint at the SR stage itself by the impugned order on the ground that the appeal is pending before the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present civil revision petition. 5 . Order VII Rule 11 CPC enumerates the various contingencies under which a plaint can be rejected. The learned Senior Civil Judge has not disclosed in the impugned order as to which of such contingencies mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 CPC is attracted to the present case. Pendency of appeal before this Court, arising from the judgment and decree in a partition suit, is no ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, even if the subsequent suit is in between the same parties and in respect of the same subject matter. It is not the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or that the relief is undervalued or that the plaint is insufficiently stamped or that the suit is barred by any law. In the absence of existence of any of the grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejection of the plaint and that too at the SR stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is unwarranted. The question as to the maintainability of the suit is distinct and separate from the one as to whether a plaint is liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is open to the trial Court to consider the question of maintainability of the suit independently if the said question arises for consideration. The plaint cannot, however, be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground mentioned in the impugned order. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is set aside and consequently the plaint is directed to be registered, if it is otherwise in order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th September 2011 Lrkm.