V.Varahala Raju And 13 Others vs M/S.Prajay Engineers Syndicate ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 191 Tel

           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

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

2012 (6) ALT 540

2016 (6) ALT 324

2003 (6) ALD 731

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