Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sri Durga Nageswara Swamy Temple Rep. By ... vs Arja Suryanarayana on 27 December, 2001
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner presented a plaint (G.L.No.4317) in the court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda for the relief of recovery of certain amount from the defendant towards arrears of Maktha, i.e., lease amount for the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner. The plaint was presented on31-12-1999. The office returned the plaint with an endorsement dated:14-6-2000 raising certain objections. The petitioner complying with the objections represented the same.
2. However, by order dated:7-8-2000, the court below rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit claim is barred by limitation. A further observation was made to the effect that separate court fee ought to have been paid in respect of each claim. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 1198 of 2000 seeking review of the order dated: 7-8-2000 rejecting the plaint. The trial court dismissed the said interlocutory application by order dated:10-11-12000 stating that it does not find any bona fide ground to review the order. The present revision petition is filed against the said order in I.A.No. 1198 of 2000.
3. Sri C.S.K.V. Ramanamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the trial court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. It is contrary to the specific provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He also submits that for the purpose of passing an order under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the trial court has to be guided by the contents of the plaint. It cannot presume any facts not contained in it. It cannot under take any inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the same.
4. Though the respondent is served with notice, he did not choose to respond.
5. A reading of the order of the trial court dated: 7-8-2000 in rejecting the plaint reveals that the lower court did not apply its mind to the facts of the case and it has gone by the objections raised by the office. The petitioner herein has categorically stated in the plaint, particularly in paragraphs 4 & 7the various amounts that are due from the defendant towards payment of Maktha. There were also some part payments for each year and thereby the claim of the plaintiff is not barred by limitation. If the plea of the petitioner, as contained in he plaint, is taken to be true on its face value, the suit cannot be said to have been barred by limitation. In fact that is the only way of looking at it, while scrutinizing the suit at the threshold. Examination of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 does not permit the court to examine or declare upon the correctness of the contents or other wise of the plaint.
6. The second ground recorded for rejection of the plaint is about payment of court fee, claim wise. It cannot constitute a ground for rejecting the plaint. At the most it may be a ground for returning the plaint.
7. Coming to the order passed in I.A.No. 1198 of 2000, the trial court said that it does not find any material error on the face of the order dated:7-8-2000 to review the same. Even this cannot be sustained. When several contentions are raised, it is the duty of the court to examine the same and render its own decision.
8. On an examination of the plaint presented by the petitioner, the order passed by the trial court on 7-8-2000 inI.A.No. 1198 of 2000, I am of the considered view that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the plaint and dismissing the interlocutory application seeking review.
9. Therefore, I hereby allow I.A.No. 1198 of 2000 and set aside the order of rejection dated: 7-8-2000. The trial court shall receive the plaint and register the same, subject to compliance with any other procedural formalities.
10. Accordingly the civil revision petition is allowed. No other as to costs.