IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.981 of 2010 Between: M.P. Yesu Rathnam and others .. Petitioners AND Ammena Begum and others .. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 11-12-2009 in I.A. No.575 of 2009 in O.S. No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ch. Samson Babu, Advocate for the petitioners, the Court made the following ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A. No.575 of 2009 in O.S. No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The petition was filed before the trial Court by the revision petitioners to reject the plaint in O.S. No.1 of 2002 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit land, which was originally a Government land, was assigned and any alienation by the assignee is in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Therefore, the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction based on the sale claimed by respondents 1 and 2 herein is, ex facie, not maintainable. The 2nd plaintiff resisted the request claiming that the questions of ownership of the land and its assignment are subject mater of the issues framed in the suit and therefore, the question of alienability of the property has to be decided in the suit on evidence. Respondents 1 and 2 contended that there was no D-form patta in favour of the father of the petitioners as claimed by them and respondents 1 and 2 even perfected their title by adverse possession. The A.P. Act 9 of 1977 is not applicable to the facts of the case. On such conflicting pleadings, the trial Court rendered the impugned order opining that these questions in controversy have to be decided after conducting trial on the basis of oral and documentary evidence to be produced during trial and it cannot be rejected at this stage. The revision petitioners contended that the subject matter of the suit is also the subject matter of W.A. No.1368 of 2002 and any findings of the trial Court must be subject to the findings of the High Court in the writ appeal. Therefore, continuation of the suit will be a futile exercise, as the High Court is seized of the matter. Hence, the revision petitioners sought for reversing the impugned order. Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners is heard and the respondents did not enter appearance in the revision petition in spite of being served with notices of the revision. The point for consideration is whether the plaint is liable to be rejected ? Point: Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables a plaint to be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint itself to be barred by any law. The plaint in the present case, a copy of which is filed along with C.R.P.M.P. No.3681 of 2010 shows that the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that the allotment of the subject land to M. Papiah was unconditional and that M. Papiah had transferable rights in the land. Their claim to have their ownership declared and the defendants restrained from interfering with their possession, was based on the alienability of the property under the original allotment and the inapplicability of A.P. Act 9 of 1977. Whether these claims of respondents 1 and 2 are tenable or not can only be determined by looking into and appreciating the relevant documents and not in a vacuum. On the allegations in the plaint, it cannot be considered to be barred by A.P. Act 9 of 1977. It may be true that the subject matter of the suit and the subject matter of W.A. No.1368 of 2002 may be overlapping each other, but the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be considered ousted by mere pendency of any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The plaint, therefore, could not have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as appearing to be barred on the face of it by any law and the conclusion of the trial Court that oral and documentary evidence have to be looked into for the purpose, cannot be considered perverse or unreasonable or an improper exercise of judicial discretion and jurisdiction vested in it. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that when the High Court is seized of the matter in W.A. No.1368 of 2002, the trial Court will be bound by the same in the suit also. It is open for the revision petitioners to take such a plea before the trial Court for which reason, the plaint cannot be rejected. Under the circumstances, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-07-2010 Svv