THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4183 OF 2011 Date: 29-10-2011 Between Chintalapudi Narendra Kumar …..Petitioner And Chandolu Rama Lakshmi and five others …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4183 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 11-08-2011 made in I.A No. 268 of 2010 in O.S No. 177 of 2009 whereby the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada dismissed the I.A filed by the petitioner – defendant No.1 to reject the plaint. In the suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff for partition of the suit schedule property and for allotment of one-sixth share to her, the petitioner filed the present I.A for rejection of the plaint stating that the plaintiff suppressed the fact that she already obtained her share of property by way of registered document from the 5th defendant and, therefore, the cause of action itself is wrong and more over, as per the written statement of the 6th defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit against vendor of the 6th defendant which is sufficient to reject the plaint. As the petitioner herein sought to take into consideration the written statement filed by the 6th defendant, the lower Court rightly dismissed the I.A holding that at the stage of considering the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, it is only the plaint averments that should be considered and the Court cannot look into the averments of the written statement and the defence plea. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaint could be rejected at any stage of the suit even if the issues were framed and even if the matter is posted for evidence. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in ITC Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others[1] wherein it was held that the whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court. This Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand since in the plaint, it is categorically pleaded in the cause of action para that when the plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant for amicable partition of the suit schedule land, partly in August, 2008, the 1st defendant filed suit against the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 and filed documents stating that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 have relinquished their shares in the suit schedule land and filed registered sale deed. Therefore, the lower Court is justified in dismissing the I.A which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 29-10-2011 ks [1] AIR 1998 SC 634