Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Tirik Reddy vs E M Lakshmi on 11 September, 2024
APHC010122292019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1093/2019
Between:
K Tiriki Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
E M Lakshmi ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K.C.KRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. P NARAHARI BABU
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
-
The Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Hindupur in I.A.No.266 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2014 dated
27.02.2019.
2. The petition filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint in
O.S.No.16 of 2014 was dismissed by the learned trial Judge.
3. The petitioner herein is defendant in the suit filed by the
respondent herein seeking declaration of right, and title over the suit schedule
properties and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining
the defendants, their men from interfering with the suit schedule property.
4. The petitioner herein, pending disposal of the suit, after
completion of the trial has filed an application under order VII Rule 11 CPC,
seeking rejection of the plaint. Stating that between the same parties there
was a previous round of litigation and the same culminated in a judgment in
A.S.No.12 of 1991 and the same has become final. It is contended that
without obtaining leave of the court, to file fresh suit, the respondent herein
filed the suit, which is not maintainable. The respondents filed their counter in
the IA stating that after framing of the issues in the case and when the suit
was fixed for cross examination of the pw1, the instant application is filed, for
rejection of the plaint, therefore the same is not maintainable.
5. The learned Judge dismissed the application observing that
order 7 Rule 11 deals with 6 reasons to reject the plaint. The petitioner has not
stated any of the reasons for rejection of the plaint. The plea raised by the
petitioner that there was an earlier round of litigation between the parties and
the instant suit would be hit by principle of res judicata, the learned judge has
observed that the same is a mixed question of law and fact on the said
principle the plaint cannot be rejected.
6. Assailing the same present revision petition is filed.
7. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that their paternal
grand father was sole absolute owner of the property and after his time his
father succeeded to the property and thereafter, the petitioner herein.
Therefore the vendor of the respondent's vendor, Smt. Bayamma, had never
had any title to the property. And that they have denied her title during the
proceedings in the earlier suit as long back as on 23.12.1987,between the
same parties. After lapse of around 18 years from the date of denial of the
title of the said Bayamma, the present suit has been instituted which is barred
by limitation and further contends that the suit is maintainable for the reason
that no cause of action has been not shown by the plaintiff to file the suit. It is
further contended that the plaintiff being party to the earlier round of litigation,
without the leave of the court, the present suit is filed, which is beyond the
period of limitation. The learned counsel referring to Article 53 of The
Limitation Act, 1963 contends that the suit is barred by limitation.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would
contend that the trial has concluded and at this stage the rejection of plaint
would not arise. And that the previous suit was for mere injunction and the
second suit is for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.
10. Considered the rival submissions.
11. The relevant provision of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., reads as
under:
"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 to comply with the provisions of rule 9:"
12. In the facts of instant case, the contention of the petitioner that
the title of the plaintiff's predecessor's in title was denied by them as long back
as in 1987 and the instant suit instituted now is barred by limitation, may not
be tenable for the reason that the earlier suit was not between the very same
parties. The previous suit was filed by a trust M/s. Young India Project. And
the present suit is filed by an individual Smt. E.M Lakshmi. A Trust and an
individual cannot be considered to be having same identity; knowledge to an
institution would not amount to personal knowledge to the Individual(s) who
make up that institution. Smt. E.M.Lakshmi may have represented the plaintiff
M/s. Young India Project in the earlier suit in O.SNo.177/1986 in her
representative capacity, the same will not preclude her from protecting her
rights over the property acquired by her subsequently, in her individual
capacity. The plaintiffs in both the suits are different. The cause of action for
filing of the suit according to the plaintiff is that when the defendants, have
created inter se documents between them denying the title of the plaintiff, the
cause of action for filing of the suit has arisen. The truth or otherwise of the
said statements are subject matter of the suit, which can be gone into during
adjudication of the relief sought in the suit, on the basis of material placed by
the parties, not at the interlocutory stage.
12. For these reasons, the contention of the petitioner that the suit is
barred by limitation, the plaint does not disclose cause of action, therefore the
plaint is liable to be rejected, is not sustainable. This Court therefore is of the
considered view that the order under Revision does not warrant interference.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date:11.09.2024
ANI
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1093 of 2019
Date:11.09.2024
ANI
