THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2732 OF 2014 Dated:17-10-2014
Between:
J. Narsing Rao and three others ... PETITIONERS AND Tappa Maisamma Devasthanam Committee, H.No.13-5-22/A, Tappachabutra, Karwan, Hyderabad, rep., by its President Mr. K. Karan Kumar, S/o. Late Sri K. Kishan, aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.13-6-251/5/12, Jaffarguda, Karwan, Hyd and four others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2732 OF 2014
ORDER:
The 1st respondent filed O.S No. 2518 of 2008 in the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the relief of perpetual injunction and certain other ancillary reliefs. The trial of the suit was completed and it is said to be at the stage of arguments. The petitioners filed I.A No. 160 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint. The reason pleaded by them was that the relief claimed in the suit is in respect of a religious endowment and Section 151 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) bars suits in respect of such institutions. The 1st respondent opposed the application by stating that the petitioners and others got registered the institution under the Act during the pendency of the suit and it cannot constitute the basis to reject the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 22-07- 2014. Hence, this revision.
Heard Sri Thakur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Megha Rani Agarwal, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
The only ground on which the petitioners wanted the plaint to be rejected is that the suit itself is barred under Section 151 of the Act. Things would have been different altogether had the institution in question been registered under the Act by the time the suit was instituted. It is not in dispute that registration was done during the pendency of the suit. It hardly needs an emphasis that it is only when the suit was barred as the things stood when the plaint was presented, that it can be rejected. Subsequent developments cannot constitute the basis for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter.
The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 17-10-2014 ks