HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
+ Civil Revision Petition No.1417 of 2020
% Date:29.01.2021
Between:
# V. Varahala Raju S/o.Narasimha Raju,
Aged about 69 years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.14-11-1036/1,
GodekiKabar, Nayabasti, Hyderabad and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
$ M/s. Prajay Enginers Syndicate Ltd.,
having its Regd. Office at 4-1-2/4,
Eden Gardens, Ramkote, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Managing Director and others.
... Respondents
! For Petitioners : Mr. A. Venkatesh
^ For Respondents : None appeared.
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
1) 2012 (6) ALT 540
2) 2016 (6) ALT 324
3) 2003 (6) ALD 731
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.1417 of 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 17.12.2020, passed in OS SR No.2670 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal, wherein and whereby the Court below returned the plaint filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on the ground that the suit is not maintainable.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has no power to return the plaint and the Court below ought to have considered that a plaint can be returned under the provisions of Order - VII Rule - 10 CPC only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, as such returning of the suit is erroneous. She also submits that the present suit is not barred by any law, as such the suit is maintainable in respect of any civil right by virtue of Section 9 CPC. It is for the plaintiff in a suit to seek relief in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case and the plaintiff cannot be forced to file a suit for declaration of title especially when there is no cloud in the title of plaintiff and in the present case, the petitioners thought that declaration for confirmation of possession is sufficient and the Court below is not justified in returning the plaint on the ground that the petitioners have not sought for the prayer for declaration of title. She also submits that even for rejection of the plaint, the Court below should follow the paramaters of Order-VII Rule-11 CPC. The Court below has not returned the plaint on any 3 grounds mentioned under Order-VII Rule 11 CPC, as such the impugned order in returning the suit is erroneous and without application of mind.
4. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments, which were placed before the Court below, which are in the impugned order, as well as other judgments i.e. V. Geeta Bahvani v. Nallu Narasimha Reddy1, sM. Bala Shirish v. Shivraj Heda2 and Sri Balaji Rice Mill v. Rice Mill and Flour Mill Workers Union3.
5. A reading of the impugned order goes to show that the trial Court without going into the merits of the matter, held that unless the petitioners institute the suit for declaration of title, they cannot seek decree for confirmation of possession, and returned the plaint and no provision of law is quoted under which the suit is returned. Though the petitioners cited two judgments claiming that the suit for confirmation of possession is maintainable, the Court below has distinguished the same on the ground that in the prayer of the present suit, declaration is not sought.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in V. Geeta Bahvani's case (1 supra) held that any rejection of plaint can only be done in accordance with the Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the Division Bench found fault with the Court below in rejecting the plaint without numbering the suit as the suit was rejected without going into the merits of the matter. Similarly, learned single Judge in M. Bala Shirish (2 supra) also opined the same and another single Judge in Sri Balaji Rice Mill (3 supra) was also of the same opinion.
7. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the impugned order in returning the plaint is erroneous and without application of mind and 1 2012 (6) ALT 540 2 2016 (6) ALT 324 3 2003 (6) ALD 731 4 therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It is for the trial Court to decide the dispute. If the trial Court is of the opinion that the suit has to be returned or rejected, the same has to be in accordance with Order - VII Rule - 10 and Order VII - Rule - 11 CPC, respectively.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 17.12.2020, passed in OS SR No.2670 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal. The Court below is directed to number the suit if the same is in order otherwise, and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J January 29, 2021 Note:
L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/O.KTL