Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pothula Venkata Raman Reddy vs The Tahsildar on 25 November, 2024
APHC010266232021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 810/2021
Between:
Pothula Venkata Raman Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Tahsildar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SODUM ANVESHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. C PRAKASH REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.810 of 2021
ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of
the Civil Procedure Code questioning the Order dated 07.04.2021
passed in O.S (SR) No.1136 of 2021 by the Senior Civil Judge,
Kadapa in rejecting the plaint.
2. The Petitioners are the Plaintiffs. The suit was filed in
representative capacity to protect the Government land meant for
public. It was pleaded that the Plaintiffs are homeless persons, eligible
for grant of house sites and had made several applications to the
Defendant Nos.1 & 2 for grant of house site pattas.
3. It is the plea of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs that they have personal
and common interest over the suit schedule property. It was pleaded
that the suit schedule property is a Government land and classified as
'assed waste' of Chinna Chowtapalli Village within the limits of
Chemmumiahpet Village fields and that the Government was intending
to prepare a layout for allotment of same to the weaker sections. While
so, the Defendant Nos.4 to 15 had created a registered document for
the suit schedule property with the cooperation of the Defendant
Nos.1 to 3.
4. It was pleaded that the Defendant No.1 mutated the names of
the private individuals in the Web land Adangal. Further the Defendant
Nos.4 to 15 also created Death Certificate of a fictitious person namely
Challa Venkata Subbaiah and also Family Member Certificate in order
to fabricate the registered documents. As the land-in-question was
classified as 'assessed waste' of Government, with an intention to
protect the schedule property, the suit was filed for declaration that the
property is the Government land and to declare the "Oppudala
Dasthaveju" registered vide document bearing No.1852/2020 as null,
void and not binding on the public. The trial Court rejected the plaint on
the ground that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause
of action to file the suit. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is
filed.
5. Heard M/s Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the Petitioners
and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents.
6. Before going into the merits of the case, this Court on earlier
hearings had posed a question to the counsel for the Petitioners as to
how the Revision can be maintained, as the plaint was rejected on
merits. The rejection was on account that the Petitioners did not have
locus standi or cause of action.
7. In response, the contention of the counsel for the
Petitioners/Plaintiffs was that the only remedy available to the
Petitioners/Plaintiffs is the Revision under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, as the plaint was rejected even before numbering
the suit.
8. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners cited certain Judgments of this Court, where the Revisions
were entertained when the plaints were rejected before numbering the
suit viz., N.Savithri & Others vs. N.Hanmappa & Others1, Sri M.Bala
(2017) 1 ALT 287
Shirish & Others vs. Sri Shivraj Heda & Another2, Chilamakuri
Suresh Babu vs. Owk Sreenivasulu & Another3 and Saibaba
Kirana & General Merchant, Banswada vs. Manjira Chit Fund
Company, Banswada4. In the above cited Judgments, the issue with
regard to the maintainability of Revision was not raised and the
Judgments were rendered with reference to the facts of the cases.
As such, they may not be of help to the question of maintainability of
this Revision.
9. The Judgment in Smt.Kavitha Balaji and Another vs.
The State of Telangana5 cited by the counsel for the Petitioners was
a case, where a suit, which was rejected before numbering, was
entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said
Judgment, this Court entertained the Revision in exercise of its
discretionary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The said Judgement is not a precedent to say that the only remedy for
the Petitioner, when the plaint is rejected before numbering, is to file a
Revision either under Section 115 of CPC of under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
10. The counsel for the Respondents relied on a Full Bench
Judgment of this Court rendered in Molugu Ram Reddy vs. Molugu
Vittal Reddy and Others6 in support of his contention that only an
Appeal has to be filed under Section 96 of CPC. Though the issue that
was referred in Full Bench was whether an Appeal under Order 43
Rule 1 CPC should be filed or a regular first Appeal should be filed
(2016) 6 ALT 324
2022 LawSuit (AP) 1001
(2024) 3 ALD 843
(2016) 6 ALD 493
(2011) 4 ALT 418
against an Order/Judgment passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In
that context, the Full Bench of this Court held that only a regular first
Appeal under Section 96 CPC can be maintained against an order
rejecting the plaint. In the reasoning given by the Full Bench of this
Court, it was held at Paragraph 17 when a plaint is rejected on account
of non-curable defects or curable defects, the remedy for the Plaintiffs
is to prefer an Appeal under Section 96 CPC. The relevant portion of
the order is extracted hereunder:-
"17. Whether the suit is dismissed after full trial or whether
the plaint is rejected either because there are non-curable
defects or curable defects (which remain un-rectified), the
remedy of the Plaintiff is only to prefer an appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the power of
rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in Saleem Bhai and Others
vs. State of Maharasthra and Others7 held that the rejection of the
plaint can be done even before numbering of the suit. Paragraph 9
thereof is extracted below:-
"9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that
the relevant facts which to be looked into for deciding an
application there under are the averments in the plaint. The
trial Court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC at any stage of the suit - before registering the
plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any
time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes
of deciding an application under clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 11
(2003) 1 SCC 557
of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane;
the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement
would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction
to file the written statement without deciding the application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but the procedural
irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial
Court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of
the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural
irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these
aspects."
12. A similar view was taken By Ho'ble Supreme Court in Sopan
Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commissioner8, Church of Christ
Charitable Trust v. Ponniamman Educational Trust9 and R.K. Roja
v. U.S. Rayudu & Another10. Therefore, in the light of the above
Judgment, the contention that the plaint could not have been rejected
before numbering cannot be sustained. Once the plaint is rejected on
merits, the remedy to the Petitioners is to file a regular first Appeal.
The argument for the Petitioners that as plaint was rejected even
before numbering, Revision alone has to be maintained cannot be
sustained.
13. In the present case, the plaint was rejected by going into the
locus standi of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and consequential lack of
cause of action. Therefore, as the impugned order is passed in
substance is 'rejection of plaint' and the only remedy for the
Petitioners/Plaintiffs would be to file the Appeal.
2004 (3) SCC 137
2012 (8) SCC 706
2016(14) SCC 275
14. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, as not
maintainable. However, the time spent before this Court i.e. from the
date of filing of the Civil Revision Petition till the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order, shall be excluded for calculation of the
limitation for filing regular first Appeal before the concerned Court.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 25.11.2024
IS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.810 of 2021
Date: 25.11.2024
IS
