M/S Sri Sai Infra, vs M/S Name Estates Private Limited,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2547 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.910 of 2019

ORDER :

This revision is filed questioning the order dated 22.10.2018

passed by the V-Additional District Judge, Bhongir in I.A.No.272 of

2018 in O.S.No.158 of 2016, dismissing the said application which

was filed for rejection of plaint.

2. Heard.

3. The case of the petitioners for rejection of plaint is that balance

sale consideration was not paid and that the suit is barred by

limitation. The petitioners, being the defendants in the suit, contend

that the plaintiff ought not have filed the suit for cancellation of

Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with Possession,

but he could have filed the suit for recovery of balance amount and

that too, bearing the limitation in mind. The petitioners further relied

on the judgments of Apex Court in Ramti Devi v. Union of India1

and in Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal & another2.

4. Order VII Rule (11) CPC, under which the present I.A. is filed

by the petitioners, reads as under :

"11. Rejection of plaint :- The plaint shall be rejected in

the following cases :

1 1995 (1) SCC 198 2 2009 (4) SCC 193

(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) Whether 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.

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

5. Since the application filed before the trial Court do not cater to

the requirement under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and further, in the

light of the judgment of Apex Court in Urvashiben & another v.

Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi3, this revision petition is liable

to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. However, if all

pleadings are completed and if both parties co-operate, the trial Court

3 2019 (1) ALT 1 (SC)

is at liberty to decide the matter at the earliest, keeping in mind the

COVID protocol and also the pendency of litigation on its board.

No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Date: 07.09.2021

ajr