Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
A. Saraswathamm - Appellant
Versus
Y. Venkata Narayana Reddy - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2411 of 2019
Decided On : 24-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
Gade Venkateswara Rao, Advocate, M.N. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate
Point of Law: plaint can be rejected on the ground that the plaint is barred by any law, which includes the law declared by the Courts. But the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant is pertaining to contractual obligation between the banker and drawer of the cheque, but not relating to contractual obligation between the drawer and drawee or their legal heirs consequent upon the death of drawer or drawee.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151, Order VII Rule 11 – Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 6 -Suit for recovery of amount – Rejection of plaint – Transaction between daughter and father – Whether suit maintainable – Held, plaint can be rejected on the ground that the plaint is barred by any law, which includes the law declared by the Courts. But the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant is pertaining to contractual obligation between the banker and drawer of the cheque, but not relating to contractual obligation between the drawer and drawee or their legal heirs consequent upon the death of drawer or drawee – Petitioner - defendant to reject the plaint at the threshold by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., having found I find no legal infirmity in the order under challenge before this Court. Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed – Civil revision petition is dismissed
Facts of the Case:
Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount based on transaction between the plaintiff and the daughter of petitioner-defendant by name A.Jyothi on 20.02.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/-, the suit is being contested. The petitioner-defendant's main contention is that the transaction between the daughter of the defendant and plaintiff is a special contract and after the death of A.Jyothi, the daughter of the petitioner-defendant on 14.03.2017, the transaction (contract) was ceased to exist. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant being the legal heir along with others cannot be proceeded for recovery of the amount. It is also specifically contended that there is absolutely no cause of action against the petitioner- defendant to file the suit based on forged and fabricated cheque said to have been issued by A.Jhothi during her lifetime drawn on Ing Vysya Bank, Punganur branch.
Finding of the Court:
plaint can be rejected on the ground that the plaint is barred by any law, which includes the law declared by the Courts. But the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant is pertaining to contractual obligation between the banker and drawer of the cheque, but not relating to contractual obligation between the drawer and drawee or their legal heirs consequent upon the death of drawer or drawee -petitioner - defendant to reject the plaint at the threshold by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., having found I find no legal infirmity in the order under challenge before this Court. Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Result: Civil revision petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
M Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 01.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.428 of 2019 in O.S.No.191 of 2017 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner Under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (for short "C.P.C.") and Section 151 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff.
3. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount based on transaction between the plaintiff and the daughter of petitioner-defendant by name A.Jyothi on 20.02.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/-, the suit is being contested. The petitioner-defendant's main contention is that the transaction between the daughter of the defendant and plaintiff is a special contract and after the death of A.Jyothi, the daughter of the petitioner-defendant on 14.03.2017, the transaction (contract) was ceased to exist. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant being the legal heir along with others cannot be proceeded for recovery of the amount. It is also specifically contended that there is absolutely no cause of action against the petitioner- defendant to file the suit based on forged and fabricated cheque said to have been issued by A.Jhothi during her lifetime drawn on Ing Vysya Bank, Punganur branch. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of I.P.C.
4. Respondent - plaintiff filed counter denying all material allegations inter alia contending that the suit is filed on the basis of the cheque issued by A.Jyothi, daughter of the petitioner - defendant and it is binding on the legal heirs of A.Jyothi when it was not honoured by the payee bank and the transaction is still continue to exist even after the death of A.Jyothi, and that the petition is not maintainable and requested to dismiss the petition.
5. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, the trial Court dismissed the petition.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the revision is filed on various grounds. The main ground urged before this Court is that the cheque was defined under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I.Act") and when the person, who issued cheque or in whose favour the cheque was issued, is no more, the transaction is ceased to exist and the suit is barred by law and requested to set aside the order passed by the trial Court and reject the plaint.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant, during hearing, placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in "Sh.Vijay Singh vs. Smt Manali Malik (I.A.No.6459 of 2008 in CS (OS) No.930 of 2007 dated 05.05.2009).
8. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff supported the order passed by the trial Court and placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Bommareddi Mothirddi v. Bhimavarapu Pothireddi, (1963) AIR A.P. 343", another judgment of High Court of Karnataka in "Girija v. K.Vinay, (2005) 1 ALD(Cri)(NOC) 3 (Karn.)" and another judgment of Madras High Court in "Karupiah Palukki (died) and others v. Periasami, (1968) AIR Madras 260" and requested to dismiss the revision.
9. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is :
Whether the Plaint in O.S.No.191 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur is liable to be rejected on the ground that the suit is barred by law by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.?
POINT:
10. Admittedly, the suit is filed based on the cheque issued by A.Jyothi, who died subsequent to issue of Cheque on 14.03.2017 and that the said suit is filed after the death of A.Jyothi. The transaction is a special contract governed by the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A "cheque" is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes th
