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 CPC .
The case of the plaintiffs in both the suits were more or less similar.
Aggrieved, the plaintiffs are before us in this appeal.
The companyditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been companysistently held to be so by the Court.
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 number been transferred in the name of plaintiff No.2 by the defendants Nos.
Both the suits were filed in July, 2002.
Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power companyferred in the companyrt to terminate a civil action at the threshold.
71 and 72 of 2002 were filed by the plaintiffs appellants herein for declaration of title and possession.
1 and 2 for the said purpose and had entirely relied on them.
Original Suit Nos.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. This appeal seeks to challenge two separate though largely similar orders both dated 26th June, 2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition Nos.1398 and 1399 of 2003.
