DURGA BAI Vs. AYYUB BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.1129 of 2017 in O.S.No.165 of 2016 by the Judge, Family Court-cumVII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, wherein the subject application filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC to reject the suit, was dismissed.

(2.) Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2, Sri A.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that RCC No.3 of 1987 filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 was allowed on 20.01.2012 by the learned Rent Controller, Zaheerabad, against which the respondent/plaintiff filed appeal in RCA No.1 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, at Zaheerabad and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved, the respondent filed CRP No.565 of 2016 before this High Court and the said CRP was also dismissed on 03.06.2016. Challenging the same, the respondent filed SLP No.22993 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed. So the subject matter of the lis attained finality. The proceedings in RCC No.3 of 1987 operates as res judicata to the subject suit and hence, the subject suit is barred by law. It is further contended that the respondent/plaintiff sought declaration of title and consequential injunction claiming adverse possession, which is unsustainable in view of the finality attained in RCC No.3 of 1987. It is further contended that the allegations made in the plaint are manifestly vexatious, meritless and not disclosing a clear right to sue. Under these circumstances, the Court below ought to have rejected the plaint exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaint is cleverly drafted creating illusion of cause of action and limitation and therefore, it is required to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing so that the bogus litigation would end at the earliest stage. The Court below is unjustified in passing the impugned order. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions