Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M S Raju vs K Rambabu on 4 September, 2020
Author: B. Krishna Mohan
Bench: B. Krishna Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.960 OF 2020
Between:
Manthina Sitarama Raju & 2 others
--- Petitioners
And
Kanda Rambabu & 2 others
--- Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 04.09.2020
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No
_______________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN.
2 BKM,J
CRP No.960 of 2020
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.960 OF 2020
% 04.09.2020
# Between:
Manthina Sitarama Raju & 2 others
--- Petitioners
And
Kanda Rambabu & 2 others
--- Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondents : --
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
This court made the following :
3 BKM,J
CRP No.960 of 2020
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.960 OF 2020
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the O.S.S.R.No.1228 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram with return objections on the plaint, dated 22.07.2020.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners.
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.S.R.No.1228 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant and her henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 and 2 over the plaint A, B, C schedule properties including B, B1, D, D1 red marked portion shown in the plaint plan and grant of such other reliefs, in the interest of justice. The suit was initially filed on 03.07.2020 and it was numbered as O.S.S.R.No.1228 of 2020, dated 06.07.2020. The plaint was returned with certain office objections, dated 06.07.2020, as follows :
1. As per document No.1 partition deed dated 02.11.2002 the surname of Plaintiffs is "Srimanthina". The signatures of plaintiffs with their surnames is not tallied in the plaint as per partition deed, likewise vakalat etc.
4 BKM,J CRP No.960 of 2020
2. The plaint plan is not tallied with the contents of plaint as well as plaint schedules.
3. How the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to file this suit, as Defendants 1 and 2 are present owners of plaint "A" and "B" schedule properties - should be explained.
Hence, returned, time 7 days.
Complying the said objections with an explanation, it was represented on 08.07.2020 with a further request if not satisfied with the compliance; the same may be put up before the Hon'ble Court for hearing on the objections and compliance.
But, the Office/Registry of the trial Court again returned the plaint on 13.07.2020 elaborating the very same earlier objections into serial Nos.1 to 17 giving seven (7) days time for compliance by the plaintiffs. Then all the objections were complied again and represented on 15.07.2020 with the same request if not satisfied the same may be put up before the Hon'ble Court for it's hearing on the objections and compliance. Even this time also the Office/the Registry again returned the plaint on 17.07.2020 with the objections in serial Nos.1 to 5 requiring the plaintiffs to comply within seven (7) days. This time also the plaintiffs have represented the plaint complying the objections with necessary explanation on 21.07.2020. The earlier request of placing the matter before the Court for hearing if not satisfied with the compliance on objections is reiterated. Ignoring the compliance and request of placing the matter before the Court below for hearing, the Office/the Registry of the trial Court again returned the plaint in O.S.S.R.No.1228 5 BKM,J CRP No.960 of 2020 of 2020, on 22.07.2020 raising similar objections in serial Nos.1 to 9 giving seven (7) days time for compliance. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed this Revision before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. It is to be noted that since it is at the stage of numbering of the suit only, the trial Court did not order any notices to the defendants and the trial Court has not even heard on return of plaint by the Office/Registry with certain objections. Hence, this Court also proceeds with the hearing of this Revision without ordering any notice to the respondents. In the similar lines this Court already disposed of C.R.P.No.3019 of 2018, dated 08.06.2018, C.R.P.No.6317 of 2016, dated 22.06.2017 and C.R.P. No.5856 of 2017, dated 19.01.2018 hearing the petitioners therein respectively at the admission stage without ordering notices to the respondents therein respectively. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioners is also heard on merits, as follows :
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that while registering the suit, the Court can go through the averments made in the plaint only without going into the merits and demerits of the case, the repeated objections taken by the Court below are beyond the purview and scope of the provisions under Section 9 and Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, whether the plaint disclosed the cause of action or not, the trial Court is not required to examine whether the plaintiff has got cause of action to file the suit and the Office/Registry of the trial Court erroneously raised several objections with regard to 6 BKM,J CRP No.960 of 2020 the identity of the plaint schedule property. The Office/Registry of the Court below ought to have numbered the suit immediately when objections dated 06.07.2020 are complied therewith instead of repeatedly returning the plaint with certain objections and the Office/Registry of the Court below ought to have raised all the objections at a time and it is not expected to raise either similar type of objections or new objections as and when the objections are complied with at every time. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for placing the matter before the Court below for hearing on the objections raised and compliance made with necessary explanation.
5. In furtherance of the submissions and contentions, he relied upon the decision of the High Court of Telangana reported in "Syed Hadi Ali Moosavi Vs. Syeda Taquia Moosavi and Others," 1 the decision of erstwhile High Court of A.P., reported in "K. Raghavendra Raju Vs. Syed Yousuf and Others"2, and the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in "Kavitha Balaji and others Vs. State of Telangana and Others"3.
6. The decision reported in 2019 (4) ALT 321 pertains to rejection of the plaint by the Court below therein upon hearing the objections on the bench. The other decision reported in 2005 (2) ALT 645 pertains to return of plaint by the Court below therein after hearing on the 1 2019(4)ALT321 2 2005(2)ALT645 3 2017(2)ALT781 7 BKM,J CRP No.960 of 2020 objections. The another decision reported in 2017 (2) ALT 781 pertains to the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (f) of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, these decisions have no application to dispose of the present Revision as the Court below herein has not yet heard on the objections and compliance of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein.
7. As stated supra, the suit was filed by the petitioners herein, the plaint was returned on 06.07.2020 with certain objections, the same was represented complying with the said objections on 08.07.2020, again returned on 13.07.2020 raising similar objections adding some more objections and they were complied with and represented on 15.07.2020, again returned on 17.07.2020 with five (5) objections which were complied with and represented on 21.07.2020, finally returned on 22.07.2020 with nine (9) objections by the Office/Registry of the trial Court. In all these occasions, at the time of representation the petitioners sought for placing the matter before the trial Court for hearing on the office objections and the compliance reported with the explanation of the plaintiffs. But, the Office/Registry of the Court below miserably failed in it's duty by not placing the matter before the Court below for hearing at the first instance itself soon after compliance of the objections dated 06.07.2020 by the petitioners/plaintiffs vide representation dated 08.07.2020 itself. The action of the Office/Registry of the trial Court in not placing the matter before the Court below so far for hearing on objections, compliance and representation of the plaint is in gross violation of Rule 22 and Rule 23 8 BKM,J CRP No.960 of 2020 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 which reads as follows :
22. (New) Procedure on presentation:-
a. On presentation of every plaint the same shall be entered in Register No. 17 in Appendix II, Part-II, Volume II and examined by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court. b. If he finds that the plaint complies with all the requirements, he shall make an endorsement on the plaint 'Examined and may be registered' with the date and his signature and placed before the Judge, The Chief Ministerial Officer shall also endorse on the plaint or proceedings if any caveat has been filed. If he thinks that the plaint shall be returned for presentation to the proper court or be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 or for any other person, he shall place the matter before the Judge for orders.
c. Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) any non-compliance with these rules or any clerical mistake may be required by the Chief Ministerial officer to be rectified. Any rectification so effected, shall be initialed and, dated by the party or his advocate making the same and the Chief Ministerial Officer shall note the number of corrections in the margin and shall initial and date the same.
In the event of such rectification not being made within the time specified, the Chief Ministerial Officer shall place the matter before the Judge for Orders.
23. (New) Registration of plaint:-
Where, upon examination, the plaint is found to be in order, it shall be entered in the register of suits, and the Judge shall pass orders as to the issue of summons or otherwise.
9 BKM,J CRP No.960 of 2020
8. The practice adopted by the Office/Registry of the trial Court in repeatedly returning the plaint on one objection or the other touching upon the merits and demerits of the case without placing the matter before the Court below for hearing is deprecated, unwarranted and contrary to Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990.
9. In the result, the Office/Registry of the trial Court is directed to place the O.S.S.R.No.1228 of 2020 before the Court below for hearing on the objections dated 22.07.2020, compliance and explanation of the petitioners/plaintiffs with regard to all such objections within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders within two (2) weeks thereafter on the receipt of the plaint and numbering of the suit in O.S.S.R.No.1228 of 2020 keeping in view the provisions of Section 9 CPC and Order VII Rule 1 CPC.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN DT. 04-09-2020 Yvk 10 BKM,J CRP No.960 of 2020 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 960 OF 2020 OF 2005 Dt. 04-09-2020 Yvk 11 BKM,J CRP No.960 of 2020