THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4704 OF 2006 DATED:29.04.2011 Between: Gurrala Madhavi & 3 others. .... PETITIONERS And The Guntur City State Government Employees Co- operative Housing Building Society Limited, Guntur & 5 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 31.07.2006, in C.F.R.No.180 of 2006 in P.O.P.No. of 2006 in O.S.No. of 2006 on the file of the learned District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said plaint filed by the petitioners herein in-forma pauperis for cancellation of the title deed, dated 19.10.1981, executed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur in O.S.No.253 of 1981 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of an extent of Ac.0.97 cents of vacant site belonging to the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 2 to 6 and for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject-land, was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was originally purchased by one Chengalrayudu on 10.04.1947 and after his death in 1964, his son- Sambasiva Rao and his wife-Punnamma-6th defendant and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 became the legal heirs and on the death of Sambasiva Rao in 1982, 4th plaintiff-2nd defendant and one Alladi Rukminamma became the legal heirs and subsequently in 1983 defendants 3 to 5 became the legal heirs in respect of the share of Rukminamma and that the 1st defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.253 of 1981 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 10.04.1947, in respect of the suit property and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were minors at that time and were not parties to the said suit and the said suit was alleged to have been compromised in I.A.No.2182 of 1981 and in pursuance of the compromise decree, the Court executed registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Plaintiffs allege that Alladi Rukminamma never signed nor affixed thumb mark on the compromise petition and the defendants 2 and 3 also did not subscribe their signatures and the alleged compromise is vitiated by fraud and is not binding on the plaintiffs 1 to 3, who were minors, and no permission was obtained from the Court to enter into compromise on their behalf. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that O.S.No.253 of 1981 was decreed on 19.10.1981 and the present suit was filed 25 years thereafter in the year, 2006 and is barred by limitation. He would further contend that the learned District Judge even before numbering the suit has gone into the merits of the case and rejected the plaint by the impugned order, which is not sustainable. 5. The impugned order does not disclose under what provision the plaint was rejected. The impugned order does not show that any of the grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is invoked for rejection of the plaint. Even before registering the suit, the learned District Judge has discussed the merits of the case and rejected the plaint on the ground that it is a speculative litigation. From the contentions of both parties, it is clear that certain disputed questions of fact and law do certainly arise to be decided in the suit. It is only just and proper that an opportunity is given to both parties to put forward their respective contentions before the disputed questions of fact and law can be adjudicated upon. Rejection of the plaint at the threshold stage, even before numbering the plaint and by discussing the merits of the case without giving any opportunity to the parties, is totally uncalled for. The trial Court is directed to register the plaint if it is otherwise in order. It is open to the contesting defendants to put forward all their contentions, including the plea for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. On such application being made, the trial Court may dispose of the same on its own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order or any observations made hereinabove. The impugned order, rejecting the plaint at the threshold stage in the circumstances of the case, is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the liberty as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th April, 2011. Tsy