THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5166 of 2010 ORDER The respondents filed O.S.No.17 of 2003 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, against the petitioner for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner filed written statement and opposed the suit. Almost at the same time, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1245 of 2003 under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 01.10.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The two objections raised by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint are that the Court fee paid by the respondents is insufficient and that the suit filed on an earlier occasion for identical relief was withdrawn without reserving the liberty. The trial Court took the view that the adequacy of the Court fee can be taken up as an issue and that the question as to whether the withdrawal of earlier suit would in any way bar the present suit, can also be examined during the course of trial. The rejection of the plaint entails in severe consequence denying the very entry of the plaintiff to the Court. It is only when the suit is specifically barred under a provision of law or that when other grounds mentioned in Rule 11 are found to be existing that a plaint can be rejected. Further, the suit is pending for the past seven years. It appears to have ripe for trial. This Court is of the view that the grounds pleaded by the petitioner do not fit into Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:08.12.2010 sj