HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA C.M.A. No:455 OF 2008 Dated: 7.7.2010 Between: 1. Sri Poddaturi Lingaiah and others ..Appellants And Akula Yadaiah .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA C.M.A. No:455 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 27.12.2007 passed in I.A.No.53 of 2007 in O.S.No.750 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, L.B. Nagar. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.750 of 2006 seeking to declare the registered sale deeds bearing Nos.6290 of 2005, 6291 of 2005 and 6292 of 2005 dated 28.10.2005 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendants 3 to 5 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff with regard to the land admeasuring Ac.11.35 in Survey Nos.132, 133 and 134, situated at Maheshwaram village and Mandal, R.R. District. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and that neither he nor his mother sold the property in question to the defendants at any point of time and by producing the wrong documents, defendant No.1 obtained mutation proceedings and therefore, the sale deeds should be declared as null and void. The defendants filed the above I.A.No.53 of 2007 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff produced a different document other than the documents under which the mother of the plaintiff sold the property to them. The Court below dismissed the above application. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the appellants-defendants that the plaintiff filed the suit by producing a different document other than the documents, under which, the mother of the plaintiff sold the property in favour of the defendants whereas it is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that neither he nor his mother sold the property to the defendants and that the 1st defendant by producing a wrong document obtained mutation proceedings. The rival contentions of the parties require a fullfledged trial. The record goes to show that this appeal was filed on 3.4.2008. But the matter was listed before this Court for the first time on 30.6.2010 i.e., nearly after a period of two and half years. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial has already been commenced by the trial Court. In view of the above submission and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. Accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date: 7th July, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA C.M.A. No:455 OF 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 07.07.2010