THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.1866 of 2014
Between: K.N.Reddy And
Dated 15th July, 2014
…Petitioner Defense Personnel Co-op., House Building Society Ltd., …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Pavan Kumar Pujari Counsel for the respondent: ----
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 29.04.2014, in I.A.No.1702 of 2013 in O.S.No.588 of 2012, on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
The respondent/plaintiff filed the above-mentioned suit against the petitioner/defendant for cancellation of sale deed No.7152/91, dated 21.08.1991, to the extent of plot bearing No.B5 in Survey Nos.108, 109, 113, 114 and 116, admeasuring 300 sq.yards, of Medipally Village, Uppal Mandal (presently Gatkesar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District and restrain him and his agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the plot.
The petitioner filed I.A.No.1702 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. He pleaded that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and therefore, it is liable to be rejected under Clause (a) of Rule 11. He has also pleaded that as the suit is barred by law of limitation, Clause (d) of Rule 11 is also attracted. The lower Court rejected the application by the order under revision.
At the hearing, Sri Pavan Kumar Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing of the petitioner’s application.
Order VII Rule 11 provides for various grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. These grounds include those mentioned in Clauses (a) and (d) which read as under:
“(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
xxxx”
With respect to Clause (a), I have perused the plaint. Para-15 of the plaint is concerned with cause of action. The plaint has narrated several events and dates on which cause of action purportedly arose. Therefore, ex facie, this is not a case where the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Even assuming that the contents of the plaint relating to cause of action may not be correct, the Court will not embark upon a roving enquiry on this aspect while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11. All that the Court needs to examine at that stage is whether the plaint contains pleadings relating to cause of action. Once the Court is satisfied that the plaint contains such pleadings, it will not go further.
With regard to second ground, namely, that the suit is barred by any law, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the dates mentioned in the paragraphs relating to cause of action, it is evident that the suit is clearly barred by limitation. A perusal of the prayer in the IA filed by the petitioner before the lower Court shows that no specific Clause of Rule 11 is referred therein. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the IA, the petitioner laid heavy emphasis on the alleged absence of cause of action. A vague plea on limitation was raised in the affidavit. From the fact that the lower Court has not even referred to the aspect of limitation in its order, it is reasonable to presume that the ground of limitation was not even pressed. Be that as it may, limitation being a mixed question of fact and law, the same can be determined after trial while disposing of the suit itself.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2630 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th July, 2014
VGB