Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Kommineni Narendra S/o Late Veeraiah – Petitioner
Versus
Paruchuri Subba Rao S/o Tirupathaiah – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 224 of 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2023
ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC - REJECTION OF PLAINT - CAUSE OF ACTION - NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES - A.P. GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994 - NOTICE - SUMMARY: The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected on the grounds of limitation or lack of cause of action. The court also held that the plaint could not be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The court further held that the issue of whether the property belonged to the Panchayat Raj Department or the plaintiffs would be decided after a full-fledged trial.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 filed an application to reject the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by law, there was no cause of action, and the plaintiffs failed to add the owners of the property as parties. The trial court dismissed the application, and the defendant filed a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected on the grounds of limitation or lack of cause of action. The court also held that the plaint could not be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The court further held that the issue of whether the property belonged to the Panchayat Raj Department or the plaintiffs would be decided after a full-fledged trial.
Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action as it averred that the plaintiffs took the lease of the suit property forty years back and that the defendants caused damage to the property on 13.11.2018. The court also held that the plaint could not be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not allow for the rejection of a plaint on this ground.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition.
ORDER :
1. Defendant No. 1 in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order, dated 24.12.2021 in I.A. No. 1483 of 2021 in O.S. No. 293 of 2021 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 293 of 2021 against revision petitioner and others seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, associates, followers and confederates from in any way interfering with and/or causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property.
3. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that plaintiff No. 2 is daughter of plaintiff No. 1; that plaintiff No. 1 took the suit schedule shop on oral lease from its owners i.e. Ravela Ramalingaiah and Ravela Srinivas, forty years back and has been running cool drink shop; that suit schedule property is one of the shops in tiled roofed house commonly known as ‘Ravela Ramalingaiah Satram Shops’ that defendant No. 1 got house towards South of the tiled roofed house; that since three years, defendant No. 1 has been raising disputes with owners of the suit schedule property; that in the said process defendant No. 1 got instigated defendant No. 3 and on 13.11.2018 with the support of unruly elements, caused damage to the tiled roof of the building; that plaintiff No. 2 along with other tenants lodged complaint with the SHO, Thulluru Police Station; that owners of the shops and defendant No. 1 filed W.P. Nos. 43066 of 2018 and 43748 of 2018 respectively; that both the writ petitions were disposed of by common order, dated 19.01.2021 recording a finding that owners of the plaintiffs proved possession over the property and further directed respondents therein not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession except by following due process of law; that defendant No. 2 by abusing his office position as defendant No. 3 got published notice, dated 16.02.2021 by giving misinterpretations to the context of the orders of the High Court; that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with staff of defendant No. 3 came to the suit schedule property on 18.08.2021 and tried to damage the suit schedule property, however, the same was resisted and hence, suit was filed for injunction.
4. Pending the suit, defendant No. 1 filed I.A. No. 1483 of 2021 to reject the plaint contending that in view of the common order passed by the High Court, there is cloud over the possession of the owners of the suit schedule property and there is no cause of action to file the present suit. It is further averred that the suit is barred by law. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed I.A. No. 1482 of 2021 to reject the plaint as the suit is pre-mature without cause of action and it is barred by law.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A. No. 1483 of 2021, defendant No. 1 contended inter-alia that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and only Endowments Tribunal has got jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The suit is filed without cause of action and hence, prayed to reject the plaint.
6. Plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the application.
7. By order, dated 24.12.2021 trial Court disposed of I.A. No. 1483 of 2021. Against the said order, the present revision is filed.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a reading of the plaint would disclose that the suit O.S. No. 293 of 2021 is barred by law in view of the findings in W.P. No. 43066 of 2018. He would submit that as per orders of the High Court in the above mentioned writ petitions, notice was issued to the plaintiffs under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the suit is filed without cause of action and without adding owners of the property as parties to the suit. He would further submit that suit is pre-matured and barred by law. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected on the point of non-joinder or property parties and as
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by any law.
A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is maintainable in a civil court, even if the property in question is alleged to be an endowment property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
It is settled law that Court has to look into contents of plaint while invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and it cannot look into defense.
The Court can reject a plaint if it fails to disclose a cause of action, but the absence of cause of action for the suit is not a ground for rejection.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for failure to disclose a cause of action if new instances of trespass are claimed, necessitating a trial on the merits.
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at any stage of the suit and the averments in the plaint are crucial for deciding su....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
