Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Honourable Sri Justice Ninala ... on 2 May, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.726 of 2022
ORDER:-
The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Orders dated 10.03.2022 in C.F.R.No.384 of 2022 dated 04.02.2022 in Un-numbered O.S.No. -Nil-/2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As the grievance of the petitioner is rejection of the plaint at the stage of scrutiny, notice to respondents is deemed not necessary.
3. The petitioner herein presented a plaint vide C.F.R.No.384 of 2022 dated 04.02.2022, inter alia, claiming that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and got possession Pathram dated 10.08.1964 executed by his sister and she delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the petitioner/plaintiff on the same day and ever since he is in actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the same, without any interruption from anybody. In the plaint, it was further averred that the respondents/defendants are his relatives and at their request, the petitioner/plaintiff gave permission to them to reside in the plaint schedule property, wherein Rekula shed was situated and the respondents/defendants agreed to vacate the suit schedule premises as and when the petitioner/plaintiff requires the same. It is also averred that in the month of November, 2021, the 2 NJS,J CRP No.726 of 2022 petitioner/plaintiff requested the respondents/defendants to vacate the plaint schedule premises and deliver the same to the petitioner/plaintiff and as they are not vacating on the one pretext or the other, he got issued a legal notice dated 24.12.2021 calling upon the 1st respondent to vacate and deliver possession of the property to which a reply notice dated 07.01.2022 was got issued by the 1st respondent. It was further averred that subsequently the petitioner/plaintiff found some documents i.e., Settlement Deed dated 26.04.1958 and on the basis of the same, the suit is filed for Declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of possession by virtue of said possession Pathram dated 10.08.1964.
4. The plaint presented by the petitioner/plaintiff was returned on 17.02.2022 with certain objections and after complying with the same, the plaint was re-presented on 21.02.2022. Again on 25.02.2022, the plaint was returned and after compliance with the objection, the same was re-presented on 28.02.2022 with an endorsement that if the office has got any objection, the matter may call on the Bench. Accordingly, the matter was heard on 04.03.2022 and subsequently by an Order dated 10.03.2022, the plaint was rejected, the relevant portion of which may be extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"12. Perused the averments of the plaint. The plaintiff is claiming the property which he got from the possession 3 NJS,J CRP No.726 of 2022 pathram dated 10.08.1964 executed by his sister Kilaru Bhavanamma wife of Kilaru Balaramaiah of Burripalem. On the date of the said possession pathram she delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and ever since the said possession pathram the plaintiff is in actual and physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property Rekula shed and without interruption from anybody. As per the list of documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint, the plaintiff did not get any right and title through possession pathram executed by Kilaru Bhavanamma in favour of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule, schedule shown in possession pathram and the schedule shown in the typed copy of the document bearing No.1009 of 1958 are not tallying.
13. In view of the above, the plaintiff has no right and title over the plaint schedule property and he is asking for declaration without any registered documents. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. Hence, in view of the foregoing reason the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit for declaration and for consequential relief of delivery of possession over the suit schedule property."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, inter alia, submits that the Order under Revision suffers from material irregularities and failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Court below. He submits that the exercise undertaken by the Court below in examining the documents filed along with the plaint at the stage of numbering the suit and opining that the petitioner/plaintiff did not get any right and title by virtue of possession Pathram is not sustainable in law. He further submits that at the stage of scrutiny/registering the suit, the Court is required to examine as to whether there is any cause of action for filing of the suit, but not a roving enquiry. He 4 NJS,J CRP No.726 of 2022 further submits that the Court below has virtually taken the role of the defendants at the threshold, even before issuing the suit summons/notice. While referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Others1 etc., the learned counsel submits that the Order under Revision is liable to be set aside.
6. On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the material on record, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is:
"Whether the rejection of the plaint at the stage of scrutiny is not sustainable, in the facts and circumstances of the case?"
Point:
7. Before dealing with the Order under Revision, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant Case Law dealing with the rejection of the plaint at the numbering stage. In K.N. Reddy v. Defence Personnel Co-Op. Housing Building Society Limited, Secunderabad2, it was held that once the plaint discloses description and the cause of action in relation to the suit claim, Courts will not embark upon roving enquiry on these aspects while considering even in an application by the defendants for rejection of the plaint.
1 (1974) 2 SCC 393 2 2014 (6) ALD 218 5 NJS,J CRP No.726 of 2022
8. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that whether a plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in its entirety must be held to be correct.
9. In Mohd. Osman Ali v. Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and another4, it was held that it is no part of the duty of the District Court to examine, at the stage of scrutiny and registration of the suit, whether the plaintiff has adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his prayer in his suit, and if the plaintiffs fail to file proper material to substantiate his pleas, he will be doing so at is peril. But, the Court cannot at the scrutiny stage insist on the plaintiff to file documents which even in its opinion are relevant for granting relief.
10. In Dantala Praveen v. Bairaboina Veeramma and Others5, it was held that it is not the function of the Court at the numbering stage to involve itself in examination of the purported discrepancy in a minute manner and reject the plaint on such a ground at the threshold and such a procedure is not sanctioned by law. Eventually, the High Court set aside the 3 2004 (9) SCC 512 4 2010 (4) ALD 273 5 2011 (4) ALD 775 6 NJS,J CRP No.726 of 2022 Order rejecting the plaint and directed the lower Court to number the plaint.
11. In Syed hadi Ali Moosavi v. Syeda Taquia Moosavi and Others6, it was held that it is not the duty of the Court to examine at the stage of scrutiny as to whether the plaintiff has adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of the relief claimed in the suit. At the stage of registration of the suit, the Court has to satisfy itself as to whether the plaint discloses cause of action and when there is semblance of the same, the Court should lean towards numbering the suit and decide the matter on merits, instead of rejecting at the threshold.
12. In Smt.Ganga Bai's case (referred 1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an issue, inter alia, with regard to basic distinction between the right of suit and the right of appeal held that "there is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute, one may, at one's peril, bring a suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But the position in regard to appeals is quite the opposite. The right of appeal inheres in no one and therefore an appeal for its maintainability must have 6 2019(6) ALD 292 7 NJS,J CRP No.726 of 2022 the clear authority of Law. That explains why the right of appeal is described as a creature of statute."
13. On a conspectus of the above settled legal position, it is to be noted that a single and solitary instance may not be sufficient to decide that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and if a reading of the entire plaint discloses the cause of action, no Court can reject or return the plaint, on the ground that it lacks cause of action.
14. In Ahmed Nawab Alladin v. Hyderabad Industries Limited7, it was held that the Courts would prefer rather than rejecting the plaint, which is almost a rarity, to adjudicate the suits on merits, than to discard them at the threshold and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been taking consistently the view that only contents as a whole that need to be taken into account for determining existence of cause of action and jurisdiction.
15. In the present case, a reading of the plaint certainly discloses cause of action and with regard to the relief sought for, the same has to be determined after undertaking a complete trial. The Court at the stage of scrutiny/registering the suit, cannot undertake the exercise of going through the documents and consider the merits and demerits, by assuming the role of the defendants.
7 2015 (3) ALD 584 8 NJS,J CRP No.726 of 2022
16. In the present case, the learned Trial Judge examined the petitioner's entitlement or otherwise of the suit claim with reference to the documents annexed to the plaint at the stage of scrutiny, which is not sustainable in view of the above stated legal position and the contention that the Order under Revision suffers from material irregularity, therefore, deserves to be accepted.
17. In the light of the expressions and underlying legal principles set out in the various decisions referred to supra and the conclusions as arrived at by this Court with reference to the above stated legal and factual position, the Order impugned is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, by setting aside the Order dated 10.03.2022 passed in C.F.R.No.384 of 2022 in O.S.No.-Nil- of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. The learned Trial Court is directed to number the suit, if the same is otherwise in Order and decide the matter, in accordance with law. It is needless to state that this Court has not recorded any opinion with regard to the merits/entitlement or otherwise of the claim as made by the petitioner herein. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J .05.2022 BLV 9 NJS,J CRP No.726 of 2022 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Civil Revision Petition No.726 of 2022 Dated .05.2022 BLV