(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to Aggrieved by the order in I. A.No.550/2024 in OS.No.356/2014 dated 01-08-2024 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.356/2014 on the file of the 1 Additional District Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the CRP in the interest of justice.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 01.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.550 of 2024 in O.S.No.356 of 2014 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore.

2. The petitioners are defendants while the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.356 of 2014.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that in the suit by the respondent vide O.S.No.356 of 2014 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.11.2011, the defendant nos.3,4 & 6 filed petition vide I.A.No.550 of 2024 under Order VII, rule 11(a)(d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to reject the plaint for want of cause of action. The respondent resisted the relief sought in the petition by filing counter. Upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition. The said dismissal order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and Ms.Marella Radha, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and grounds of this Civil Revision Petition would contend that since the alleged agreement of sale does not refer to execution of any registered sale deed based on the said agreement of sale, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and hence the suit having been filed without any cause of action, the same has to be rejected, however, the learned trial Judge upon erroneous view of the facts of the case dismissed the petition through the impugned order and as such the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Ms.Marella Radha, learned counsel for respondent while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court would contend that since the earlier petitions filed setting out the self-same grounds for the same relief have been dismissed and hence the petition filed for rejection of the plaint is hit by the principles of res judicata. She would further contend that the defence set out by defendant no.1 in the plaint that the agreement of sale is a forged one and that the same having been not registered is liable for stamp duty and penalty and denial of handing over of possession of the property are questions of fact and law which could only be decided upon full-pledged trial but not while dealing with petition under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC. She would further contend that the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petition and the well-considered order does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The respondent filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale initially against 1st defendant contending that the 1st defendant having received the entire sale consideration executed agreement of sale of even date and delivered possession of the plaint schedule property and even though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to get registered sale deed, the 1st defendant with dishonest intention posted execution of registered sale deed and as the defendant is trying to alienate the property suppressing the agreement of sale, he filed the suit.

9. The 1st defendant filed written statement contending that he never executed agreement of sale and the same is forged and fabricated and the said document being void does not bind the 1st defendant and no consideration was passed to this defendant and that the agreement of sale was brought into existence out of grudge in view of court cases between them in respect of Baptist Christian Mission Property.

10. From perusal of the record, the instant petition has been filed after lapse of ten (10) years from the date of filing of the suit, after completion of evidence of plaintiff and when the matter is coming up for defendants’ side evidence.

11. The grounds set out in the petition to reject the plaint, in brief, are that the unregistered agreement of sale, under which entire sale consideration was said to have been paid and possession was delivered on the same day would at best be a sale deed but not agreement since no contractual obligation is there to perform and since it does not contain any condition of execution of sale deed on demand, is unenforceable for want of registeration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. That handing over possession is spurious and ambiguous as per the own documents relied on by the plaintiff, as per agreement of sale on that day itself possession was handed over, whereas as per Ex.C1 it was handed over on the next day of execution of agreement of sale. That when agreement of sale does not contain any recital regarding execution of registered sale deed, how can a suit be filed for such relief, simply because a notice was issued demanding execution of sale deed. Therefore, since the agreement of sale does not contain any specific recital regarding the need of execution of sale deed, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the plaint seeking such a relief.

12. At the outset, it is relevant here to mention that contents of the counter as well as the impugned order shows that earlier, the defendants filed as much as three (03) petitions, one for rejection of Ex.A1-agrement of sale, under Order 13, Rule-3 and section 151 of CPC vide I.A.No.736 of 2022 and the other three for rejection of the plaint. Questioning the dismissal order passed in I.A.No.736 of 2022, the defendants preferred Civil Revision Petition vide CRP No.182 of 2023 and the same is pending. The petitions filed for rejection of the plaint were also dismissed, however the defendants did not choose to prefer any appeal and the said orders of dismissal have attained finality.

13. It is fairly settled that an application for rejection of a plaint can be filed at any stage of the suit, before filing the written statement, after, or even at the time of final arguments, because the court is under a mandatory obligation to decide if the plaint discloses a cause of action. Further, a defendant can file a subsequent petition (application) for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) even if a previous petition was dismissed, provided that the subsequent petition is based on a different cause of action or a different ground for rejection. However, if the subsequent petition is based on the exact same facts and grounds that were already argued and decided, it is generally not maintainable as it constitutes a misuse of the judicial process.

14. From the tenor of the petition, it is evident that the sole ground urged for rejecting the plaint is lack of cause of action on the ground that since the agreement of sale does not contain any averment as to execution of registered sale deed on demand, the plaintiff cannot seek such a relief by filing the plaint. The other grounds urged as to maintainability of the suit based on unregistered agreement of sale coupled with possession is a question of law and the other grounds regarding forged nature of agreement of sale and ambiguous delivery of possession of the property are questions of fact. Since the earlier petitions filed for lack of cause of action were dismissed and the said dismissal orders have attained finality, the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the petition, even though filed by other defendants but on the same set of facts. The impugned order does not require interference of this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and the same deserves dismissal.

15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.