THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDACIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1719 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 aggrieved by the order, dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.1195 of 2018 in O.S.No.557 of 2018, wherein and whereby an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The respondent filed O.S.No.557 of 2018 against the revision petitioners for recovery of money of Rs.13,42,848/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. It is stated that the respondent is having acquaintance with one Neelarapu Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred as “the deceased”), who is the husband of revision petitioner No.1, father of revision petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of revision petitioner No.4 and basing on the said acquaintance, the respondent requested to arrange plot or land for purchase for a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in and around Bheemaram, Chinthagattu, Erragattu or Waddepally area, for which the deceased agreed and promised to search and arrange for purchase and he has shown one or two properties but the said transaction was not materialized.

3. It is further stated that reposing confidence on the deceased, the respondent had paid amounts on different dates making total sum of Rs.11,21,221/- and the particulars were reflected in the plaint. It is further stated that the said amount was transferred to the account of the deceased lying in Andhra Bank, Warangal Branch from the account of the respondent i.e. State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Warangal, H.D.F.C. Bank, Warangal and Bangalore Branches. Even after receiving the said amount, the deceased did not arrange any plot/land to the respondent. On 28.01.2017 the deceased was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, for treatment of Infection in Lungs and on his request, as a part of the transaction the respondent had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the account of the deceased on 28.01.2017. Subsequently, the deceased died in the month of February, 2017 and the revision petitioners being the Class-I legal heirs of the deceased are under obligation to discharge the liability of the deceased and when the respondent contacted the revision petitioners to discharge the aforesaid liability, they did not evince any interest and as such, the respondent filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of money of Rs.13,42,848/- together with interest @ 12% per annum.

4. After receiving the summons, the revision petitioners entered their appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. vide I.A.No.1195 of 2018 seeking for rejection of the plaint in the said suit contending that there was no such transactions between the deceased and respondent and the deceased never took any amount from the respondent. It is further stated that the said suit deserves to be rejected on the ground that as it is hit by the infirmities as provided in four clauses of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and it is also contended that there is no valid document executed by defendant No.1 or her deceased husband in favour of the respondent and that the suit is barred by limitation. It is also contended that in the absence of filing of pronote, issuance of legal notice to the deceased or to the revision petitioners demanding payment of the amount, no cause of action would arose to the respondent for filing the suit. It is also contended that the suit is liable to be rejected on two grounds that the suit is barred by limitation and that there is no cause of action to file the suit.

5. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed