THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1354 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order, dated 25.02.2011 passed in O.S.(SR).No.460 of 2011 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Petitioners herein have filed O.S.(SR).No.460 of 2011 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendant and other family members from interfering with their physical possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property bearing municipal No.15-4-320, constructed in an extent of 40 sq.yards, situated at S.V.N.Road, Warangal City. In the said suit, even before its numbering, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge passed the impugned order refusing to number the suit on the ground that earlier, there was a decree in O.S.No.595 of 1993 with regard to same suit schedule property, as such, the petitioners can file E.P. for violation of the decree but they cannot file a fresh suit. O.S.No.595 of 1993 was filed by the husband of the first petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 to 5, alleging that he is the tenant of the suit schedule property and there is interference by the respondent herein with the suit schedule property with reference to the cause of action arose in 1993, issues were framed and it was decreed. The respondent also filed R.C.C.No.2 of 1998 before the Rent Controller, Warangal, seeking eviction of the petitioners. In the said case, eviction was ordered and the same was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.9 of 2002 on 26.02.2007 but this Court in C.R.P.No.1783 of 2007 reversed the same by remanding the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration. When the matter is pending for reconsideration before the Rent Controller, alleging that there is interference with their possession again on 24.01.2011, the petitioners have filed O.S.(SR).No.460 of 2011, in which, the impugned order is passed stating that as much as the same suit schedule property was the subject matter of O.S.No.595 of 1993, though there is a fresh cause of action arose, and as the decree is operating against the defendant, the petitioners can as well file E.P. for violation of the decree but they cannot maintain fresh suit. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as much as the present suit is filed with reference to the cause of action which arose on 24.01.2011 and as the suit is for injunction simplicitor, the Court below ought to have numbered the suit. It is submitted that as it is mentioned in the impugned order itself that there is a fresh cause of action, there is no reason for not numbering the suit and driving the petitioners to file an application for violation of the decree in O.S.No.595 of 1993. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that as much as the decree is operating against the defendant with regard to the same suit schedule property, the petitioners can as well file an application for violation of the decree but they cannot maintain a fresh suit on the same subject matter. It is also submitted that in any event, rejection of plaint is a decree, as such, revision itself is not maintainable. In this case, it is to be noticed that O.S.No.595 of 1993 was filed alleging that there is interference on a particular date in 1993 with regard to suit schedule property. In O.S.(SR).No.460 of 2011, it is the case of the petitioners that earlier, the decree obtained by the respondent in R.C.C.No.2 of 1998, as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, was set aside by this Court in C.R.P.No.1783 of 2007 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. During pendency of the matter before the Rent Controller, there is fresh interference by the respondent on 24.01.2011. If there is violation of the decree in O.S.No.595 of 1993, it is open for the petitioners to file an application against the same. When it is specifically alleged that there is further interference on 24.01.2011 with the possession of the petitioners and filed O.S.(SR).No.460 of 2011 for injunction simplicitor, the Court below ought to have numbered the suit and the reasoning assigned in the impugned order stating that they can only file an application for violation of earlier decree but they cannot maintain the present suit, cannot be accepted. Even assuming that it is a decree within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it won’t fall in any of the categories so as to reject the plaint under Rule 11(a) to (f) of Order VII CPC. For the aforesaid reasons, as the very reason assigned by the Court below in the impugned order is illegal and not in accordance with law, this Court can always in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India correct the same by entertaining the revision petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, order, dated 25.02.2011 is set aside and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is directed to number O.S.(SR).No.460 of 2011 filed by the petitioners subject to compliance of all other legal requirements. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th AUGUST, 2011. Note:issue c.c. tomorrow. kvni