S.UDAYA Vs. S.SANDHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dtd. 23/8/2023 passed in I.A.No.135 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2023 by the II Additional District Judge, Warangal, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted O.S.No.7 of 2023, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In response, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, filed I.A.No.135 of 2023 to reject the plaint. The primary contention of the petitioner before the trial Court was that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite authority to file the suit, specifically with regard to item Nos.2 to 4 of the scheduled properties. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the plaintiffs had never been in possession of the scheduled properties. The petitioner also pointed out that the plaintiffs have not paid the required ad- valorem court fee, which is a mandatory pre-requisite for filing a suit. The respondents countered these averments before the trial Court by asserting that the GPA holder had the necessary authority to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. Additionally, the respondents argued that the question of joint possession was inextricably linked with complex factual and legal issues, rendering the petition premature. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the trial court vide order dtd. 23/8/2023 dismissed the petition holding that the issues raised by the petitioner required a full-length trial to determine, and therefore, it would not be justified in exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

(3.) Heard Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V. Umaptahi Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.