Telangana High Court
Pitavath Lakshmi vs Pitavath Jamia on 27 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2006 OF 2022
ORDER :
This revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by
the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar rejecting the petition at the
stage of registering the suit vide O.S.S.R.No.6468 of 2022. The
office has raised four objections and the same was placed before
the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge, after hearing
the petitioners herein rejected the plaint stating that plaint should
be only on facts whereas, the plaintiffs quoted several sections of
law and several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and various
High Courts and the pleadings should contain the facts but not
law. They also relied on the judgment in Gauri Dutt Ganesh, Lall
Firm Vs Madho Praad 1 and Kedar Lal Vs Hari Lal 2, wherein it
was clearly observed that the pleading should state facts but not
law and that the sections of law should not be quoted verbatim
and there is no requirement to cite the reported judgment in the
pleadings.
1 AIR 1943 PC 147
2 AIR 1952 SC 47
2. Heard Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners
and none appeared on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
trial Judge, avoided to consider the ratio of within the mentioned
judgments i.e., Gangabai Vs Vijay Kumar and Others 3 and
Thanamki Prasad Vs Guntamadugu Pullamma and others 4,
wherein the Division Bench of this Court consistently held that
merits of the suit cannot be considered at the stage of registration
of plaint whereas, the trial Judge has not gone into the merits of
the suit but only objected that the suit pleadings should contain
facts, but not law. Therefore, there is no illegality in the objection
taken by the trial Court. With regard to this objection, petitioners
are directed to file the suit with necessary corrections,
4. The second objection taken by the trial Court is that no
relief is sought against defendant Nos.2 to 23, though they are
shown as parties to the suit and the plaintiff failed to make proper
representation as to why defendant Nos.2 to 23 are added as
parties to the suit without seeking any relief against them.
3 AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1126
4 2005 (4) ALD 247
5. With regard to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the contents in Paragraph Nos.6, 9 and 11 of
the plaint disclose as to why and for what purpose the suit had
been instituted against the defendants 11 to 23 and it was not
absolutely essential to seek some or the other relief as against the
said defendants, as they were not disclosing the nature of their
interest, but he has not mentioned the nature of relief sought
against them whereas it is mentioned that property sold to
defendants 11 to 23. Even though no relief is claimed against
them, if they are proper parties, petitioners can implead the said
parties in the suit. As such the revision petitioners are directed to
mention as to why they are added in the suit.
6. The third objection taken by the trial Court is that the relief
sought against defendant No.24 is not separately valued by the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs paid only Rs.200/- as per Section 34 (2)
of the Telangana Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for
short the 'T.S.C.F. & S.V. Act') and the plaintiffs failed to convince
the Court as to how such relief can be sought against defendant
No.24 without separately valuing that relief.
7. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the relief of
mutation of names in the revenue records against defendant No.24
was separately valued under Section 43 of the T.S.C.F. & S.V. Act.
In the Court fee column of the plaint and a separate court of
Rs.15/- has been duly paid thereon, if it is paid the trial Court to
look into the same.
8. The fourth objection taken by the trial Court is that cause of
action para mentioned in the plaint is not correctly reflecting the
cause of action for the relief of partition sought for by the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs simply mentioned that all the facts stated
in the foregoing paras constitute cause of action, instead of
showing the cause of action specifically. Hence, the same is not
clear. Therefore, the revision petitioners are directed to mention
the cause of action clearly and properly in the plaint.
9. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of directing the petitioners to present the plaint with the
said amendments. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed. The Registry is directed to return the original plaint, if filed
by the petitioner.
__________________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :27.12.2023
Rds
