HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:680 OF 2011 ORDER: This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise the order of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.295 of 2010 in O.S.No.828 of 2010, dated 01.02.2011. In the above suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, the 1st defendant filed the written statement contending that his mother has no right to alienate the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and more so, when he filed the suit in O.S.No.511 of 2005 against his mother viz., Koti Ratnam, who is the vendor of the property to the plaintiff-Mareedu Srinivasa Rao, the said suit was decreed in his favour for 1/3rd share in the schedule property therein and aggrieved by the same, the vendor of the plaintiff herein filed an appeal and the same had been dismissed on merits. It is further contended that since the plaint schedule property in the present suit is part and parcel of the property, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.511 of 2005, the plaintiff cannot claim any right. After filing the above written statement, the 1st defendant filed the above I.A. for rejection of the plaint stating that the schedule property is an ancestral property and in view of the partition decree, the plaintiff has no right to make any claim over the property and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The contention raised by the petitioner-defendant that the property in respect of which the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction is the alleged subject matter of earlier partition suit viz., O.S.No.511 of 2005, is only a defence available to him in the suit and it can only be decided in the main suit after a full fledged trial. Now, suffice it to say that for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non- disclosure of cause of action, the averments in the plaint have to be considered. But the defence of the defendants cannot be considered at the threshold of the suit. In view of the same, I feel that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court and hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:18th March, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:680 OF 2011 18.3.2011