9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1398 and 1399 of 2003. By the aforesaid orders, the High Court, in reversal of the order of the learned trial judge, has allowed the applications filed by the Defendants Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of Civil Procedure"). Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs are before us in this appeal. 2. Original Suit Nos. 71 and 72 of 2002 were filed by the Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) for declaration of title and possession. The case of the Plaintiffs in both the suits were more or less similar. According to the Plaintiffs as they were living abroad they had reposed trust and faith in Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are their close relatives (sister and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 31.8.1979 jointly in the name of Plaintiff No. 2 and the Defendant No. 3, who is the son of Defendant No. 1. According to the Plaintiffs immediately after they came to know of the said facts, they had issued a legal notice on 20.12.1999 and on receipt of the reply to the said notice which contained an unequivocal denial of the Plaintiffs' claim, the suit being Original Suit No. 72 of 2002 was filed. Both the suits were filed in July, 2002. 5. Rejection of the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power Under Order VII Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... else. Thereafter, they had issued a legal notice on 3.12.1999. The Plaintiffs have further averred that it is only from the reply of the said notice that they could come to know of the true facts and the conduct of the Defendants in conspiring to cheat the Plaintiffs. Thereafter, according to the Plaintiffs after obtaining the copy of the decree of specific performance passed in O.S. No. 24/1985 and the judgment of the Appeal Court in A.S. 215/87 as well as the judgment of the High Court dated 13.1.1995, the suit in question was filed, inter alia, for: a) For a declaration that the Plaintiff has title over the schedule property and for possession of the suit schedule property from the Defendants. b) For cancellation of the judgment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) For costs. 9. Both the suits were filed in July 2002 which is well within three years of the date of knowledge, as claimed by the Plaintiffs, of the fact that the property had not been transferred in the name of Plaintiff No. 2 by the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The aforesaid averments made in the plaint will have to be accepted as correct for the purposes of consideration of the application Under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. If that be so, the averments in the plaint would not disclose that either of the suits is barred by limitation so as to justify rejection of the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. There is yet another issue framed by the High Court as Question No. 3 which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
