IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4975 OF 2007 DATED:03.12.2010 Between: Srinath Builders Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Kailash Charan S/o. late Mahabeer Pershad R/o.8.2.610, Road No.11 Banjaraja Hills, Hyderabad … Petitioner And A.M. Ananth Rao and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4975 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness of the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in I.A. No.464 of 2007 in O.S. No.146 of 2006, in dismissing the application purported to have been filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The suit – O.S. No.146 of 2006 was filed by the respondents – plaintiffs for specific performance of contract dt.16.4.1989 and for the consequential reliefs against the revision petitioner – defendant. The petitioner - defendant filed I.A. No.464 of 2007 in the suit to reject the plaint as it was barred by limitation as well as barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. The case of the petitioner herein before the Court below was that prior to filing of an arbitration application and the present suit, on the very same cause of action the respondents had filed O.S. No.128 of 2000 for injunction and O.S. No.522 of 2000 for a declaration that the transaction entered into between the defendants 1 to 3 therein, who are third parties, with the revision petitioner - defendant herein, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential reliefs and both the said suits were dismissed. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The respondents herein opposed the application. The Court below after taking into consideration the entire material on record, did not find favour with the case of the petitioner – defendant and dismissed the application. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is seen that inter alia on the very same cause of auction the respondents – plaintiffs had earlier filed O.S. No.128 of 2000 and O.S. No.522 of 2000. Therefore, the matter requires enquiry and further hearing on that aspect by the Court below. Admittedly, no such enquiry was conducted, nor necessary evidence on the aspect was produced either by the petitioner or by the respondents. Hence, for that purpose, the matter has to be remanded back to the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in I.A. No.464 of 2007 in O.S. No.146 of 2006, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to Court below to pass order afresh in accordance with law after holding necessary enquiry. It is made clear that both the parties are at liberty to produce their evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their claim. No costs. _______________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 03.12.2010 bnr