Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mandalapu Rajesh vs The Branch Manager on 11 April, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.496 of 2022
ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 18.11.2021 passed in C.F.No.3373 of 2021 in S.O.P.No.______ of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. As the above said Order has been passed at the stage of numbering of the O.P., notice to the respondent is deemed not necessary.
3. The petitioners herein filed the above said O.P., under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. In the O.P., it is their claim that their grandmother by name N.Krishnaveni deposited a bond for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.09.2017 at S.B.I., Padmavathi Center Branch, Podalakur Road, Nellore and the maturity date of the said bond is 14.09.2020. The said Krishnaveni nominated the petitioners' mother one Smt. M.Annapurna @ Annapurnamma as nominee. Due to ill health, the said Smt.Krishnaveni died on 15.01.2020. Her husband predeceased her on 31.08.2014. It is further stated that Smt.Annapurna, mother of the petitioners died on 18.01.2018 prior to the death of Smt.Krishnaveni, leaving behind the petitioners as her legal representatives and no application has 2 been field by any other person seeking a Succession Certificate in respect of the bond obtained by the said Smt.Krishnaveni. A plea was taken in the O.P., that after the death of the nominee i.e., Smt.M.Annapurna, the petitioners stepped into her shoes and as such they are entitled for a Succession Certificate. At the stage of scrutiny, the learned Judge of the Trial Court formulated a question whether the legal representatives of a nominee who predeceases the nominator enters into the shoes of the nominee and entitled to receive the amounts or the property of the nominator and held that the petition itself is not maintainable and rejected the same. The learned Judge also relied on the decisions reported in Union of Bharat, Ministry of Railway v.
Mst.Asha Bi1, Shakura Bi v. Asha Bi2 and M.V.Krishnamoorthy v. Anandalakshmi3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Revision Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the Order under revision is illegal, contrary to law and constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the learned Trial Court. He submits that the learned Trial Court committed a material irregularity in going into the merits of the petition at the threshold instead of examining the matter as to whether the petition discloses any cause of action. He submits that once the petition discloses some cause of action, the learned Trial Court, without 1 AIR 1957 MP 79(DB) 2 AIR 1950 Nagpur 244 3 1980(2) MLJ 321 3 making a roving enquiry into the matter or examining the merits or otherwise of the claim, ought to have registered the O.P. He submits that the Trial Court, have gone into merits of the case at the threshold and rejected the petition, which is not sustainable. He submits that the Order under revision causes not only grave injustice to the petitioners, but also constitutes failure of justice and under the said circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate reliefs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. This Court has considered the contentions advanced and perused the material on record. Before adverting to the Order under revision, it may be appropriate to mention here that at the stage of scrutiny of the petition/plaint, the Court has to examine whether there is any cause of action to the petitioners to institute the proceedings. It is not the duty of the Court to go into the aspects as to whether the plaintiff has adduced sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate his pleas. If he fails to file proper material, he will be doing so at his peril. A learned Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Mohd. Osman Ali v. Second Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad4 while finding fault with the Order of the learned Trial Judge held that the Court cannot at the scrutiny stage insist on the plaintiff to file documents, which, in its opinion, are 4 2010(4) ALD 273 4 relevant for granting relief. In the present case, the learned Trial Court went into merits of the case at the stage of scrutiny and examined the entitlement of the petitioners to the relief sought for in the O.P. It virtually assumed the role of a defendant and non-suited the plaintiff at the threshold. It is settled law that once the plaint discloses the description and cause of action in relation to the suit claim, Courts will not embark upon a roving enquiry on these aspects while considering even on an application by defendants for rejection of plaint (K.N.Reddy v. Defence Personal Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Secunderabad5).
6. In Ahmed Nawab Alladin v. Hyderabad Industries Ltd., Hyderabad6, it was held that "Courts would prefer to adjudicate the suits on merits, than to discard them at the threshold and rejection of plaint is almost a rarity". In ascertaining whether the petition shows a cause of action, the Court does not enter upon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of the claim made by a petitioner. It cannot take into consideration, the defences which the defendant may raise upon the merits nor is the Court competent to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact. If the allegations in the petition, prima facie, show a cause of action, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether 5 6 2015(3) ALD 584 5 the allegations are true in fact, or whether the petitioner will succeed in the claims made by him.
7. In the light of the above stated legal position, the Order under revision, in the considered opinion of this Court is not sustainable. A reading of the petition filed vide C.F.No.3373 of 2021 discloses the cause of action to the petitioners with reference to the bond stated to have been taken by the petitioners' grandmother and in such circumstances, rejection of the petition on the basis of some decisions, at the threshold, is not justified. In such view of the matter, the Order under revision is set aside in exercise powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the matter is remanded back with a direction to the learned Trial Court to number the Original Petition, if it is otherwise in order.
8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 11.04.2022 BLV 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.496 of 2022 Dt: 11.04.2022 BLV