HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1770 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. The petitioners, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, filed I.A.No.74 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) &
(d) r/w Section 151 CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint of the plaintiffs/respondents.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit; i) to declare the final decree/Award passed by the Lok Adalat Bench, Suryapet in O.S.No.8 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet dated 25.03.2017 as void and a result of fraud and collusion, not binding the plaintiffs in the suit properties; ii) to pass decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants(petitioners herein), their family members from causing interference in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.
3. The petitioners who are defendants in the Suit filed petition for rejecting the said Plaint mainly on the ground that the very same Court where the suit was decreed has to decide and adjudicate upon the claim of the plaintiffs that fraud was played or not and separate suit cannot be 2 maintained before the Court. As per Section 47 of CPC any question relating to execution and discharge have to be decided by the Court executing the decree and not by way of separate suit, for which reason, the suit is being hit under Section 47 of CPC, has to be rejected. Several other grounds on facts are also raised before the Court below.
4. For the sake of convenience, Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is extracted hereunder:
"11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9."
5. The trial Court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and others [(1994) 1 SCC 1], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree 3 obtained by playing fraud on the ground would be a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. Further, such decree proceedings can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. Basing on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trial Court found it appropriate to dismiss the claim of the petitioners/defendants in the main suit in rejecting the plaint.
6. Section 47 of CPC is extracted below-Section \ " Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. 2[Explanation 1.-- For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II.-- (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.]"
7. The disputes which can be entertained under section 47 is confined to or in relation to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. A decree obtained by fraud does 4 not fall within any of the three contingencies mentioned in section 47.
8. A reading of the plaint would reveal several instances of cause of action and narrated by the lower Court in its order, for which reason, prayer for rejection of the plaint cannot be entertained. Written arguments are filed and several factual grounds are raised by the petitioner, which are not germane to the present adjudication.
9. For both the reasons of plaint making out a clear cause of action and also in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu's case, the revision fails and liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.12.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1770 OF 2022 Date: 14.12.2022.
kvs