Allowed

B.T. Srinivasulu v. M.V. Krishna Prasad

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jul 2021CRP/648/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order rejecting the plaint. The court held that returning the plaint was improper because the pending writ petition was against the State for a revenue matter, not against the suit defendants.

What did the court decide?

The impugned docket order dated 08.06.2021 is set aside; plaint is remanded to Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda, to be considered as per Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C.

B.T. Srinivasulu Vs M.V. Krishna Prasad — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.648 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

Present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, questioning the docket order dated 08.06.2021 in returning the plaint, in VCF No.580 of 2021 in O.S. No. of 2021 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu (In the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda).

¶5

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a plaint under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. in VCF No.580 of 2021 in O.S. No. of 2021 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu (In the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, assigns from interfering with plaintiffs settled peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and to award costs. The same was returned on the ground that the writ petition is pending with the subject property and interim stay also granted about the subject property. Hence, the present revision is filed.

¶6

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that said writ petition is filed aggrieved by entertaining of ROR appeal by the RDO, Ananthapuramu filed by the respondents/ defendants herein against the cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. However, the said writ petition is filed against the State, whereas the present suit is filed against the

¶7

¶8

defendants/respondents herein, seeking permanent injunction. He therefore prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.

¶9

On perusal of the docket order, it discloses that the plaint is returned only on the ground of pendency of writ petition and the stay granted therein. However, said writ petition is filed against the official respondents with regard to the revenue appeal. Thus, the return of petitioner’s plaint by the trial court is found improper and infirm.

¶10

In view of the above, the docket order dated 08.06.2021 in VCF No.580 of 2021 in O.S. No. of 2021 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu (In the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda to consider the plaint, as per the provisions under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, and pass appropriate orders.

¶11

Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶12

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 01.07.2021

Pnr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶17

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.648 of 2021

¶18

Dated 01.07.2021

¶19

Pnr

B.T. Srinivasulu v. M.V. Krishna Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.T. Srinivasulu v. M.V. Krishna Prasad

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

Kotha Chinna Annaiah, Vs Arya Pranay Kumar Reddy

Uppalapu Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Badri Bhupal Reddy Vs the State of Ap

J.B.Sankara Rao, Vs Sri P.v.Chalapathi Rao

Revuri Ratna Prakash Vs B. Srinivas

Chintala Subba Rao, Vs K. Chiranjivi