HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3893 OF 2010 DATE:03-09-2010 BETWEEN Mallidi Laxmi Priyanka …Petitioner AND Mallidi Satya Sree Narender Reddy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3893 OF 2010 ORDER: Defendant in the suit filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 25.6.2010 dismissing I.A.No.1391 of 2010 in O.S.No.851 of 2009 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) read with Section 151 C.P.C. to reject the plaint. The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. The respondent-plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration to declare his marriage with the petitioner herein that solemnized on 19.8.2005 as null and void on the ground that the petitioner herein was aged 16 years at the time of the marriage. Contesting the suit, the petitioner herein filed a written statement denying the averments and she had showed her readiness and willingness to join the company of the respondent for leading conjugal life stating that the marriage has been consummated between the parties. She filed the impugned I.A. to reject the plaint. The lower Court dismissed the impugned I.A. holding only when the pleadings do not disclose any cause of action to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) plaint can be rejected. Similarly, Order VII Rule 11 (d) also does not apply, as it is not the case of the petitioner that the suit claim is barred by limitation, and therefore, she cannot seek rejection of the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the marriage has been consummated between the parties, there is no cause of action for filing the suit by the respondent and therefore, the same has to be rejected. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that after filing the written statement necessary issues were framed, that P.W.1 was examined and was also cross-examined, that the petitioner also filed her affidavit in lieu of chief-examination as D.W.1 and she was also cross- examined and that the matter is coming up for arguments. Therefore, at this stage, the rejection of plaint does not arise. Having regard to the fact that the entire trial has already been completed and the suit is coming up for arguments, it is not desirable to reject the plaint at this stage. The discretion exercised by the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 03, 2010 Tsr.