1973 Supreme(AP) 21

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.RAMULU
P.B.Rammohanreddy~ - Appellant
Versus
Chintal Achaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 02-27-73

The City Civil Court is one court and all the suits have to be instituted by presentation of the plaint to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. The date of presentation of the suit in the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court will be the proper date of institution of the suit even though it was for the purpose of distribution, allotted by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court to another Judge of that court and the latter court, finding that the suit was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction returned it for presentation jurisdiction returned it for presentation to the proper court. Even if on the proper date of presentation of the suit the plaintiff was dead and the suit was filed under a bona fide belief that the plaintiff was alive, that application for bringing the L. Rs. on record could be considered under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SUIT - INSTITUTION - JURISDICTION - COURT - CITY CIVIL COURT - ONE COURT - DISTRIBUTION OF WORK AMONG JUDGES - CHIEF JUDGE - POWER TO DISTRIBUTE WORK - SUIT FILED IN COURT OF CHIEF JUDGE - ALLOTMENT TO ANOTHER JUDGE - RETURN OF PLAINT FOR PRESENTATION TO PROPER COURT - DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT - DATE OF PRESENTATION IN COURT OF CHIEF JUDGE - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED PLAINTIFF - SUBSTITUTION - ORDER 1, RULE 10, C. P. C. - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

A suit was filed in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for a declaration that the alienations of the joint family properties, effected by their father, were not binding on them, and for setting aside those alienations. The suit was filed by the minors Ram Mohan Reddy and Jayashree, son and daughter of one Balwanth Reddy, per maternal grand-father Bala Reddy as their next-friend. The mother of the plaintiffs i. e. , defendant No. 1 remained ex parte but the other defendants contested the suit. Six days after the presentation of the plaint in the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court i. e. , on 21/09/1967 the 1st plaintiff, Ram Mohan Reddy died. A petition under Order XXII, Rule 3, C. P. C. for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased 1st Plaintiff on record, was filed on 15-11-1967. The suit and the petition were not till then, numbered. The 2nd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court then raised an objection to the valuation of the suit, found that he had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly returned the plaint and the L. R. petition on 11-7-1968 for presentation to a proper Court. The suit was then valued at Rs. 5,500. 00 and the plaint was represented before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court on 1-8-1968. Under Section 12 of the C. C. C. Act the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, allotted the suit the Court of the First Additional Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. On 23-10-1968, the suit was numbered in the Court of the First Additional Judge, city Civil Court, as O. S. 88/68. When the pendency of the L. R. petition which was already on record was brought to his notice the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, endorsed on it that it was presented on 23-9-1969 and ordered it to be numbered. The I. A. was accordingly numbered as I. A. No. 347/69. The First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, dismissed the L. R. Petition holding that the suit must be considered to have been instituted on 1-8-1968 when it was presented to the proper court and, on that date, the Ist plaintiff was already dead and hence the question of bringing his legal representatives on record, under Order XXII, Rule 3, C. P. C. did not arise. It could neither the considered as a defect in any proceedings of the suit which could be recited under Section 153, C. P. C. nor as a suit filed in the name of wrong, plaintiff within the meaning of Order 1, Rule 10,c. P. C. and hence the petition under Order XXII, Rule 3, C. P. C. could neither be considered and allowed under Section 153 , C. P. C. nor under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. Aggrieved by the said order dismissing the L. R. Petition the petitioners have come up in revision to this Court.

Finding of the Court:

The City Civil Court is one court and all the suits have to be instituted by presentation of the plaint to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court who in order to regulate the work of his court, is competent and has jurisdiction to distribute the work among the various other Judges of the City Civil Court. The date of presentation of the suit in the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court will be the proper date of institution of the suit even though it was for the purpose of distribution, allotted by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court to another Judge of that court and the latter court, finding that the suit was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction returned it for presentation jurisdiction returned it for presentation to the proper court. Even if on the proper date of presentation of the suit the plaintiff was dead and the suit was filed under a bona fide belief that the plaintiff was alive, that application for bringing the L. Rs. on record could be considered under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C.

Issues: 1. Whether the City Civil Court is one court and all the suits have to be instituted by presentation of the plaint to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court? 2. Whether the date of presentation of the suit in the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court will be the proper date of institution of the suit even though it was for the purpose of distribution, allotted by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court to another Judge of that court and the latter court, finding that the suit was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction returned it for presentation jurisdiction returned it for presentation to the proper court? 3. Whether even if on the proper date of presentation of the suit the plaintiff was dead and the suit was filed under a bona fide belief that the plaintiff was alive, that application for bringing the L. Rs. on record could be considered under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C.?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the City Civil Court is one court and all the suits have to be instituted by presentation of the plaint to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. 2. Yes, the date of presentation of the suit in the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court will be the proper date of institution of the suit even though it was for the purpose of distribution, allotted by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court to another Judge of that court and the latter court, finding that the suit was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction returned it for presentation jurisdiction returned it for presentation to the proper court. 3. Yes, even if on the proper date of presentation of the suit the plaintiff was dead and the suit was filed under a bona fide belief that the plaintiff was alive, that application for bringing the L. Rs. on record could be considered under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C.

Final Decision: Revision petition allowed, order of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad set aside, I. A. 347/69 allowed and First Additional Judge, City Civil Court directed to allow the legal representatives of the deceased 1st plaintiff to be brought on record. Civil Revision Petition allowed with costs.