THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.37 of 2011 ORDER The petitioner, who is an unsuccessful plaintiff at the threshold, invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter lia seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 27.12.2010, passed in O.S (SR) No.37074 of 2010, rejecting the suit filed by him before numbering and processing it. Heard Sri T. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed O.S. (SR).No.37074 of 2010 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2008, passed in A.S.No.16 of 2008, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the judgment and decree, dated 20.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.7124 of 2005 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on the ground that defendant No.1 obtained the decree by fraud and misrepresentation, and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, their henchmen, agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. The case of the petitioner in O.S.(SR).No.37074 of 2010 is that he is not a party to the said proceedings. However, he claims proprietary rights in respect of the same. He states that defendant No.1, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.7124 of 2005, obtained decree by fraud. Hence, he filed the present suit. The Court below raised an objection as to the very maintainability of the suit and holding that the petitioner could have as well filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree by invoking the legal provision as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but not by filing a separate suit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. It is now well established that in regard to the maintainability, the rejection of suit does not arise. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to A.S.No.16 of 2008 and even in O.S.No.7124 of 2005. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said judgment and decree would bind against him and more so, if any proceedings are tainted with any fraud or misrepresentation, it would only be established during the course of enquiry. Further, it is also now well established that normally, the Courts should not try to reject the plaint or the suit at the threshold even before numbering and giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. In the circumstances, the order impugned is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Court below to process and number the same and it shall dispose of the suit after giving notice and opportunity to both sides. No order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Date:21.01.2011. Note: Issue CC within one week. (Bo) sj