THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3862 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.38 of 2005 in the Court of III Additional District Judge (FTC), Ongole, against respondents 2 to 6 and the petitioner (2nd defendant), for the relief of partition and separate possession of four items of the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are the sons of late Nallamalli Satyanarayana and the 2nd respondent herein (1st defendant) is their mother. Respondents 4 to 6 are said to be members of the same family. The 1st respondent pleaded that items 3 and 4 of the suit schedule were purchased in the name of their mother i.e. the 2nd respondent herein, and they were acquired with the funding of the joint family. The petitioner filed a written statement, opposing the suit, on 22.02.2006. The suit is pending disposal. The petitioner filed I.A.No.292 of 2010 under Rule 11(d) of Order VII C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. He stated that the plea of the 1st respondent that items 3 and 4 purchased in the name of their mother, is contrary to the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and that the plaint is liable to be rejected. The 1st respondent opposed the I.A. The trial Court dismissed the application through order, dated 14.07.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I.A.No.292 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein was frivolous and totally untenable in law. A plaint can be rejected only on specific grounds mentioned in Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. Even if the plea of the petitioner is to be taken into account, he could at the most render the transactions, through which items 3 and 4 were acquired, as invalid, or the claim of others, as untenable. It is just un- understandable as to how a plaint can be rejected, on that ground. In fact, the petitioner himself did not feel that he filed the written statement. Four years after the written statement was filed, he came forward with this application. Except that an attempt was made to protract the proceedings, there does not appear to be any legal, or factual basis for the application. The trial Court took correct view of the matter and the C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:23.09.2011 GJ