Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vijaya Lakshmi Nelluri, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 April, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.401 of 2021
ORDER:-
The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the Order dated 22.01.2021 in G.L.No.1714 of 2020, wherein the plaint presented by the petitioner/plaintiff in an unnumbered suit on the file of the Court of XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzividu, was returned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As the grievance of the petitioner is return of the plaint at the stage of scrutiny, notice to respondents is deemed not necessary.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She preferred a suit against the respondents herein and presented the plaint on 19.11.2020 before the Court of XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzividu. In the plaint, while setting out the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the suit including issuance of Notice under Section 80(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short „C.P.C.‟) to the 1st respondent/1st defendant and undertaking affidavit allegedly obtained by the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant under coercion from the petitioner/plaintiff, a claim for Rs.55,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., towards compensation and damages was made.
2
NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021
4. Initially, the plaint was returned with certain office objections on 24.11.2020, which were complied with and the plaint was re-presented on 28.12.2020. Pursuant to which, the following office note was put up.
"It is submitted that on 24.11.2020 office took objection 1 to 9 are returned plaint for compliance. Again on 21.12.2020 office returned the plaint with two objections i.e., 1)Previous objections not compiled properly. 2) File necessary original documents to show that the extend of land belongs to the plaintiff in the plaint which on basis for cause of action.
With regard to objection No.6 i.e., how the suit maintainable without showing proper & necessary parties to the suit as defendants to that the advocate for plaintiffs represented and filed citation as per decision reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases Page No.417.
D2 is the servant of the D1 and the wrong is committed by D2. D2 being a government employee who works at D1‟s office. Hence, both the defendants are necessary parties to the suit.
It is further submitted that the plaintiff can foresee and seek appropriate relief he has made all the necessary parties and under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., Court has got power to Order addition of necessary and proper party to the pliant.
With regard to objection No.2 Dt.21.12.2020 i.e., to file necessary original document to show that the extent of land belongs to the plaintiff in the plaint which on basis for cause of action to that the Advocates for plaintiff submitted the basis for the cause of action is abuse of position by the Defendant No.2 by making pencil marks next to the record of plaintiffs lands and entry in prohibited Register. Therefore, it is not necessary to file any document related to land.
3
NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021 Further original of the photocopies of the document filed along with plaint can, in any event to produce at or before settlement of the issue as per citation 2015(3) ALD 641 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Dt.29.03.2015 in C.R.P.No.904/2015.
It is further submitted by Advocates for plaintiff if the objections complied are not satisfactory the matter may be called on Bench.
Submitted for orders."
5. Subsequently, the matter was heard by the learned XV Additional District Judge, Nuzividu, and the following order was passed.
"Heard the counsel for plaintiff Mr.Teja Chand. Since the plaintiff has not filed any piece of documents to show that Smt.Nelluri Vijaya Lakshmi is registered owner of Ac.1.90 cents in Revenue Survey No.637/2 of Kunaparaju Parava Village and the objections taken by the Sub Registrar, Proposed Defendant No.2 in this suit and failed to explain in regard to execution affidavit dated 09.06.2020 by Smt.N.Vijaya Lakshmi i.e., Doc.No.5, this Court is not satisfied with the submissions of counsel for plaintiff to number the suit. Hence, it is returned."
6. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decisions reported in Dantala Praveen v. Bairaboina Veeramma and Others1, Mohd. Osman Ali v. Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and 1 2011 (4) ALD 775 4 NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021 another2 and 2001(3) ALD etc., submits that the Order under Revision suffers from material irregularities and is contrary to the well settled principles of law. He submits that as the actions of the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant have put the marketable title of the petitioners/plaintiff‟s land in question and caused distress to her, the suit for a decree seeking compensation and damages was filed. Referring to averments made in the various paragraphs of the plaint, the learned counsel would submit that when the plaint discloses some cause of action, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to number the suit, instead of returning the same on the ground that the relevant documents were not filed. He also submits that as held by the Hon‟ble Court in Pujari Narasaiah v. Modem Sudhakar3, there is no requirement that all original documents relied upon must invariably be produced along with the plaint. He further 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 failed to explain in regard to execution of affidavit dated 09.06.2020 is contrary to Law. He also 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 would urge that the Court below has virtually taken the role of the 2 2010 (4) ALD 273 3 2012 (3) ALD 641 5 NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021 defendants at the threshold, even before issuing the suit summons/notice, and the same is impermissible. While referring to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Smt.Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Others4 etc., the learned counsel submits that the Order under Revision is liable to be set aside.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is:
"Whether the return/rejection of the plaint at the stage of scrutiny is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case?"
Point:
9. 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.
10. In K.N. Reddy v. Defence Personnel Co-Op. Housing Building Society Limited, Secunderabad5, 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. 4 (1974) 2 SCC 393 5 2014 (6) ALD 218 6 NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021
11. A reading of the Order under Revision would go to show that the plaint was returned on two grounds that 1) the plaintiff had not filed any documents to show that the petitioner/plaintiff is the Registered owner of Ac.1.90 cents in R.S.No.637/2 of Kunaparaju Palem village and 2) that she failed to explain the aspect with regard to execution of affidavit dated 09.06.2020 i.e., document No.5 filed along with the plaint. The above said objections for rejection of the plaint are not sustainable. As held by the learned Judge in Mohd. Osman Ali's case referred to supra, if the plaintiff failed to file proper material to substantiate the pleas, he/she will be doing so at his/her peril. With regard to the execution of affidavit and the reliefs sought for in the suit, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same are required to be examined after undertaking a complete trial.
12. In Smt.Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Others6 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, inter alia, while dealing with an issue 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 6 (1974) 2 SCC 393 7 NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021 appeals is quite the opposite. The right of appeal inheres in no one and therefore an appeal for its maintainability must have the clear authority of Law. That explains why the right of appeal is described as a creature of statute."
13. In Dantala Praveen v. Bairaboina Veeramma and Others7, 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 Order, rejecting plaint and directed the lower Court to number the plaint.
14. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I8, 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.
15. In Syed hadi Ali Moosavi v. Syeda Taquia Moosavi and Others9, a learned Judge held that it is not the duty of the Court to examine at the stage of scrutiny as to whether the 7 2011 (4) ALD 775 8 2004 (9) SCC 512 9 2019(6) ALD 292 8 NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021 plaintiff has adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of the relief claimed in the suit.
16. Further in Ahmed Nawab Alladin v. Hyderabad Industries Limited10, 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.
17. In the present case, a reading of the plaint certainly discloses cause of action and in fact no opinion was expressed by the learned Trial Court that there is no cause of action. In such circumstances, the Court should have numbered the suit and decided the matter on merits, rather than undertaking the exercise of going through the documents and considering the merits and demerits by assuming the role of the defendants, which is not sustainable and constitutes material irregularity.
18. In the light of the expressions in the various decisions referred to supra and the conclusions as arrived at by this Court on the basis of the same, the Order impugned is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. The point is thus answered in favour of the petitioner. 10 2015 (3) ALD 584 9 NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021
19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Order dated 22.01.2021 passed in G.L.No.1714 of 2020 on the file of the Court of XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzividu, is set aside. 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 27.04.2022 BLV 10 NJS,J CRP No.401 of 2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Civil Revision Petition No.401 of 2021 Dated 27.04.2022 BLV