CHINTALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY ANOTHER Vs. RAZIA SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.239 of 2017 in O.S.No.1447 of 2003 by the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the subject application filed by the revision petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint for want of cause of action, was dismissed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants would submit that the subject suit is not filed within the period of limitation as stipulated under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 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 contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs, 2019 AIR(SC) 1430 and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the revision petition as prayed for.