HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.545 OF 2011 DATE:25-02-2011 BETWEEN K.Sudheer & Others …Petitioners AND G.Hari Prasad and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.545 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed by the defendants under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise dismissal order in I.A.No.299 of 2010 in O.S.No.123 of 2010, dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Mylavaram. Plaintiffs-respondents herein filed the above suit for declaring their right over a piece of land shown as ABC in the rough sketch and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the said property stating that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 10.9.2003 when the plaintiffs purchased the property AB-DEFG, on 01.11.2006 when BGK was purchased from the father and husband of the defendants 1 and 2, on 01.11.2006 when possession of the ABC property was delivered to the plaintiffs by their vendors and cement poles and barred wire was installed red-marking the schedule site as pathway for the plaintiffs and on 18.6.2010 when there was on slought by the defendant No.1 and his henchmen for removing the barred wired and the cement poles and on the day when the defendants constructed rolling shutters to be opened into the schedule property lying on the western side of their property. Contesting the said suit, defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement on 20.10.2010 and third defendant filed written statement on 20.7.2010 along with list of documents. After filing the written statements, the impugned I.A. was filed by the defendants-petitioners herein for rejection of the plaint stating that the suit was filed against defendants 1 and 2 by suppressing all the material facts without there being any cause of action and without disclosing the clear title, right to sue and claimed the ABC triangular bit of property which is the part and parcel of the original extent of 427 ¾ sq.yds. acquired by their ancestors. The lower Court after taking into consideration of the fact that the document, dated 10.9.2003, which was executed by the vendors of the plaintiffs on their behalf clearly shows that the 15 feet triangular piece of land was leaved by the vendors of the plaintiffs for the purpose of Bazaar pathway and the same was delivered and handed over to the plaintiffs, and that in that document also, as the third defendant himself admitted the same fact and shown the 15 feet triangular piece of land which was leaved by the vendors of the defendants for the purpose of Bazar pathway, held that it gives rise to a cause of action and accordingly dismissed the I.A. It is well settle that the cause of action is a mixed question of bundle of essential facts and law, which is the primary duty on the plaintiffs to establish the same during the course of trial and the same cannot be rejected at the threshold. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court dismissing the I.A. does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 25, 2011 Tsr.