Nagabhairava Medhini Devi vs Perumalla Kasi Rao

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(AP) 332

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S.V.BHATT
Nagabhairava Medhini Devi – Appellant
Versus
Perumalla Kasi Rao – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Addepalli Suryanarayana, Advocate. For the Respondents:M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the proper Court fee to be paid on an appeal challenging an order of rejection of plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC? Question 2? What are the grounds on which a plaint can be rejected under Rule 11, and how does that affect the maintainability of appeals? Question 3? What protective or interim measures can be granted during pendency of appeals against an order of rejection of plaint to prevent prejudice to parties?

Key Points: - The Court held that an appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint is maintainable and that the decree for rejection of plaint is a form of decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC. (!) - It distinguished between decrees in a suit and decrees arising from rejection of plaint, determining that subject-matter value for court fee in such appeals is not the same as that in the original suit and allowed deficit court fees to be paid. (!) (!) - The Full Bench (Kumarika Subarna Rekha Mani Devi) held that the subject-matter of an appeal against an order of rejection of plaint has no value in terms of money and that Section 47 of the Act does not govern such appeals; court fee is payable as for miscellaneous appeals. (!) (!) - The appeals against orders under Rule 11 can be disposed of on merits or on the grounds of the rejection; the court considered whether the grounds in Rule 11(b) or (c) vs. (a) or (d) affect the fee payable. (!) (!) - The court rejected the applications for rejection of the appeals but allowed the applicant to pay the deficit Court fee; the appeals were not liable to be rejected on mere non- payment of proper fee. (!) (!) - Interim protection was granted: respondents cannot transfer or create third-party rights in the suit schedule property during pendency of the appeals without Court permission. (!)

Question 1?

What is the proper Court fee to be paid on an appeal challenging an order of rejection of plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC?

Question 2?

What are the grounds on which a plaint can be rejected under Rule 11, and how does that affect the maintainability of appeals?

Question 3?

What protective or interim measures can be granted during pendency of appeals against an order of rejection of plaint to prevent prejudice to parties?

ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

A.S.Nos.82, 83 and 84 of 2013 are filed by the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 2011 in the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, against nine defendants. Three applications, being I.A.Nos.362, 363 and 364 of 2011, were filed by defendants 2 and 4, defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.5 to 9, respectively, under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. Through a common order, dated 15.02.2012, the trial Court allowed the applications, and thereby, rejected the plaint. Hence, three appeals came to be filed before this Court by the plaintiff.

Raising an objection as to the adequacy of the Court fee paid by the appellant, the respondents filed A.S.M.P.Nos.782, 783 and 784 of 2013, with a prayer to reject the appeals. The appellant, on the other hand, filed a set of applications with a prayer to permit him to pay the deficit Court fee. He has also filed A.S.M.P.No.287 of 2013 with a prayer to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property.

Since the appeals are against an order of rejection of plaint, we proposed to hear the appeals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document