Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Venkata Swamy And Five Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By ... on 25 July, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2014 HYD 9
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1255 OF 2014 25-07-2014 G. Venkata Swamy and five others... PETITIONERS State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad and another RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:Sri Sunil Ganu Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate General <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1.MANU/MH/0283/1992 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1255 OF 2014 Dated:25-07-2014 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1255 OF 2014 ORDER:
The respondents filed O.S No. 658 of 2009 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners opposed the suit by filing a written statement. The trial of the suit commenced. Half way through, the petitioners filed I.A No.2346 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, with a prayer to reject the plaint. Their contention was that the suit is devoid of cause of action and is barred by limitation. The trial Court has taken up enquiry into I.A No.2346 of 2011. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A No. 486 of 2014 under Order VIII Rule 1 (3) read with Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to receive certain documents. According to them, the documents mentioned in the petition, though were referred to in the plaint, were not filed into the trial Court and a perusal of the same is essential to decide the question of limitation or rejection of the plaint. The respondents opposed the application by filing counter. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through its order dated 16-04-2014. Hence, this revision.
Sri Sunil Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the scope of enquiry into an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited; the Court is not only entitled to, but also is under obligation, to verify the documents referred to in the plaint, that too in the context of examining the question of limitation. He submits that having referred to in the plaint, particularly in the paragraph pertaining to the cause of action, certain documents which are mostly the orders passed by this Court and having made a specific reference to the same, the respondents did not file the same. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust . Learned counsel submits that the trial Court ought to have permitted the filing of the documents.
Learned Advocate General for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that while examining an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to just take the averments in, or contents of the plaint on their face value and it is not permissible to look into any other external material. He submits that the application was filed with a view to drag on the suit and the trial Court has rightly rejected the same.
The rejection of the plaint is a facility, created to a defendant in a suit to thwart further proceedings in the trial Court. Such a facility is created only in limited circumstances. Certain grounds are mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which, if established, would enable the trial Court to reject the plaint.
The petitioners filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by taking the plea that the suit is devoid of cause of action, and is barred by limitation. One of the settled principles in this behalf, is that while dealing with an application filed for rejection of plaint, the Court has to take the contents of the plaint on their its face value, and it cannot be permitted to look into any external material. In Venture Global Engineering, Froses, Michigon, U.S.A v. Satyam Computers Ltd., Secunderabad and another , this Court took the view that the plaint, in this context, shall mean not only the plaint proper, but also the material or documents annexed thereto.
In the instant case, if the petitioners made an attempt to file documents, which did not form part of the plaint, the view taken by the trial Court can certainly be treated as correct. A perusal of the plaint discloses that extensive reference was made to the orders passed and judgments rendered by this Court in writ petitions and writ appeals etc. Heavy reliance was placed upon them to plead that the suit is filed within limitation and there exists a cause of action for it. As a matter of fact, the proceedings that ensued before this Court were mentioned in the paragraph pertaining to the cause of action itself. For one reason or the other, copies of those orders were not annexed to the plaint. The appellants intended to place the same before the Court, may be, for the limited purpose of examining the question of cause of action and limitation. Since the documents were very much mentioned in the paragraph pertaining to the cause of action, they ought to have been received.
Therefore, the C.R.P is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is directed that the trial Court shall receive copies of such of the orders as are mentioned in the paragraph relating to cause of action.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 25th July, 2014