Allowed

M v. S R Mohan, Spsr Nellore Dist v K Sujana, Spsr Nellore Dist and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2019CRP/2525/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges a trial court's repeated rejection of a plaint on substantive objections. The High Court held that the trial court cannot act as an objector regarding merits at the registration stage and directed the lower court to register the suit immediately.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitioner allowed; Trial Court directed to register the suit within two weeks without raising objections searching into merits.

M v S R Mohan, Spsr Nellore Dist Vs K Sujana, Spsr… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2525 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ganga Ramireddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶4

The petitioner is the plaintiff. His complaint seems to be against the trial Court, in one way or the other returning the plaint raising objections such enquiries touching upon the merits of his claim, as set out in the plaint.

¶5

The major objection, as seen from the written endorsement on the docket, at the stage of numbering the suit, is in respect of maintainability of the suit. The reason pointed out is that, the earlier suit in O.S.No.126 of 2006 was between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on one hand and defendant Nos.4 and 5 on the other. The endorsement of the trial Court also reads that the petitioner purchased the property from defendant Nos.1 and 2 in dispute and, therefore, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.126 of 2006 is binding on the plaintiff. Such endorsement was made on 04.04.2016.

¶6

At the stage of numbering or registration of the suit, the Court is obliged to consider the nature of the cause of action set out, Court fee to be paid on the relief sought on appropriate valuation and thereafter question of limitation. The Court is not expected to go into the merits of the claim of the plaintiff. These are the requirements of Order IV C.P.C and particularly Order VII

¶7

¶8

C.P.C. Rules 8, 9(1), (4), 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26 of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice shall be borne in mind for this purpose and in the present context. Rule 23 of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, mandates, thereafter, registration of plaint.

¶9

When there is substantial compliance with the above provisions of law, the Court cannot take such recourse as is observed in this case calling the plaintiff to justify his claim. The Court cannot take the role of objector at that stage as if to support the version of the defendants in raising such objections which touch upon the merits of the claim of the plaintiff. The Court is also expected to take all such objections at a time and if it is not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the plaintiff in justifying his or her claim, it is expected of the Court pass an order rejecting the plaint. It cannot go on returning the plaint adinfinitum. The course so taken by the Court below in this case, is not proper.

¶10

Therefore, finding that there is justification for the petitioner to bring to the notice of this Court what had happened in the trial Court to his plaint it is just and necessary that the trial Court be directed to register the suit, if otherwise in order, without considering such objection as has been repeatedly raised by it. The defendants upon appearance in the suit will take care of such matters.

¶11

Therefore, the written endorsement dated 04.04.2016 which is questioned in the C.R.P is not proper and necessarily it has to be set-aside.

¶12

¶13

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to register the suit if it is otherwise in order and without raising any objection searching upon merits of the plaintiff. Trial Court shall complete such exercise within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

________________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

¶16

Date: 17.12.2019 RJS

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

¶19

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2525 OF 2016

¶20

DATE : 17.12.2019

¶21

RJS

M v. S R Mohan, Spsr Nellore Dist v K Sujana, Spsr Nellore Dist and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M v. S R Mohan, Spsr Nellore Dist v K Sujana, Spsr Nellore Dist and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ngos Housing Building Socieity Vs a.S.Maqbool

Konda Hanuman Reddy at Peda Hanuma Reddy Vs Vuyyuru Malleswari

Dasari Roop Kiran Kumar, Vs Dasari Rambabu

Intisundaraiah Vs Marri Santhi Karuna Kumar

Dukka China Apparao Vs Mutchi Appayyamma

Inti Sundraiah Vs Marri Santhi Karuna Kumar