KASANI NARASIMHULU Vs. SATHAGOWNI SRINIVAS GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.25 of 2008, on the file the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak, against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the said Court, dismissing I.A.No.189 of 2013 filed by the petitioner herein/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

(3.) IN the said suit the defendant/petitioner herein filed written statement, resisting the plaint averments. In the said suit the defendant/petitioner herein filed the present I.A.189 of 2013 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint. The defendant/petitioner herein in the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A.189 of 2013 contended that the suit agreement of sale dated 25.11.2006 does not contain proper schedule of property and the property mentioned in the agreement of sale is not carrying the location of the property where it is situated and it does not contain the name or place, taluq, mandal nor it contains the address of the Registrar or Sub -Registrar nor the district and the State where the property is situated; the alleged agreement of sale dated 25.11.2006 is vague and indistinguishable in nature and not with specific boundaries; property alleged to be agreed to sell is not having specific location or jurisdiction for its identification and no map nor sketch plan has been enclosed; the said document does not contain jurisdiction particulars which are basic in nature and are necessary for numbering the suit and to say that the suit dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Court; respondents/plaintiffs utterly failed to comply with Order VII Rule 1 and Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure as required by statute during the numbering of the suit; the Court lacks jurisdiction and the suit suffers from lack of cause of action and that the cause of action arose on 25.11.2006 is false and the property mentioned in the alleged agreement of sale is not the property mentioned in the suit schedule. In the receipt dated 25.11.2006 also there is no specific mention about the location where the property is situated and the property covered by alleged agreement of sale and the suit schedule property is not one and the same.