Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr Alias Pathipati Vijayalakshmi vs N. Reddeppa Naidu on 1 July, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1575 of 2019 This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the Return Endorsement dated 08.05.2019 in O.S.No...of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittor District .
The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit initially for the following reliefs:
1) To declare the plaintiff's right and title over the plaint schedule property; and
2) Consequentially directing the defendants to remove the constructions in the plaint schedule property and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within stipulated time granted by the Hon'ble Court, if the defendants fails to do so, the same may be done by due process of law by way of mandatory injunction and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff; and
3) Consequentially after delivery of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Later, the 3rd relief was deleted and now the suit is only for declaration of title, delivery of possession and mandatory injunction. But the Court raised several objections one after the other and returned the plaint ultimately, insisting for the plaintiff to comply with those objections.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the limitation aspect cannot be taken at the stage of 2 registration of the suit since it is a mixed question of fact and law and return of the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable, as it is barred by limitation, is illegal and requested to set aside the Order.
Order 7 Rule 10 CPC deals with Return of the Plaint. According to it, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Sub Rule 2 of CPC deals with the procedure on Return of Plaint. On return of plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it., In the present case, the objection raised by the Presiding Officer of the Court is that the suit is barred by limitation. No doubt, objection as to the limitation can be raised at any stage since Section 3 of the Limitation Act permits the Courts to take objection, but when it is a mixed question of law and fact, the same cannot be decided at the stage of registration of the plaint itself and the Apex Court in Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat v. Inder Kumar and others1, the Supreme Court while dealing with rejection of the plaint exercising power under Section VII Rule 11 of CPC held that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, the Court cannot 1 2015 SCC 751 3 reject the plaint and the same principle is applicable to the present facts of the case and the return of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation is erroneous. Consequently, the objection raised by the trial Court is overruled for the limited purpose of registration of the plaint. This Order will not preclude either the parties or the Court to take such plea of limitation, as Section 3 of the Limitation Act permits the Court to raise such objection at any stage.
With the above direction, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Dt. 01--07--2019 eha 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1575 of 2019 Dt. 01-07-2019 eha