Dismissed

Kurupudi Satyanarayana, v. Kurupudi Sattiyya at Satyam

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jul 2023CRP/1065/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging dismissal of an application to return a plaint at the stage of evidence. The High Court held return of plaint is not maintainable at that stage as non-compliance of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC is not a ground under Order 7 Rules 10 or 11 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Application for return of plaint is not maintainable at this stage; plea to be raised at final adjudication.

Kurupudi Satyanarayana, Vs Kurupudi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CMR, J. CRP No.1065 of 2023

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶4

Civil Revision Petition No.1065 of 2023

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

Aggrieved by the order, dated 13.04.2023, passed in I.A. No.475 of 2022 in O.S.No.600 of 2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, whereby the petition filed under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC to stall the further proceedings of the Suit and to return the plaint, was dismissed by the trial Court, the instant Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legal validity of the said order.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶8

The petitioners are the defendants in the Suit in O.S. No.600 of 2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The said Suit was filed for cancellation of the registered sale deed and the gift deed. The Suit was filed by the plaintiff represented by his next friend on the ground that the plaintiff is of unsound mind. The defendants have filed their written statement opposing the claim. In the written statement

¶9

they have also pleaded that the next friend is not competent to file Suit on behalf of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is not a person of unsound mind.

¶10

¶11

CMR, J. CRP No.1065 of 2023

¶12

After the written statement was filed, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the Suit was posted for trial and the trial in the said Suit commenced. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Thereafter, the Suit was posted for evidence of the defendants and DW.1 was also examined.

¶13

At that stage, the present petition under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC was filed alleging that the very filing of the Suit by the next friend on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff is of unsound mind is defective as the procedure contemplated under law relating to filing of a Suit by the next friend on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground of unsound mind of the plaintiff is not followed. Therefore, it is prayed to return the said plaint.

¶14

The trial Court after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order, has dismissed the said petition. The trial Court held that earlier also the petitioners have filed applications for rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Court and on other grounds and all the said petitions were dismissed and now again the present petition is filed at the stage of adducing evidence by the defendants. The trial Court also held in its order that the plaintiff also died during the course of the

¶15

¶16

CMR, J. CRP No.1065 of 2023

¶17

trial and thereafter, the Suit is being continued by the next friend on the ground that he got interest in the Suit property.

¶18

The said order of the trial Court is now mainly challenged on the ground that as the procedure contemplated under Order 32, Rule 15 CPC for filing the Suit by a next friend on the ground that the plaintiff is suffering from unsound mind is not adhered. So, it is prayed to return the plaint at the fag end of the trial of the Suit when the matter stood posted for adducing further evidence of the defendants.

¶19

When the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and when the Suit is posted for adducing the evidence of the defendants, in the considered view of the Court, at that stage, the plaint cannot returned or rejected. The grounds on which the plaint can be rejected are clearly enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The present ground, which is pleaded that the Suit is not properly instituted by the next friend by adhearing to the procedure contemplated under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, is not made a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Even, it is not a ground for return of the plaint as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. So, the petition filed for return of the plaint at that stage is totally misconceived. Therefore, this Court do not

¶20

¶21

CMR, J. CRP No.1065 of 2023

¶22

find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court warranting interference of this Court with the same.

¶23

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. However, it is left open to the defendants to raise the said plea, relating to the institution of the Suit by the next friend on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff is of unsound mind and non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, at the time of final adjudication of the Suit. No costs.

¶24

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.

¶25

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶26

Date:04.07.2023. cs

Kurupudi Satyanarayana, v. Kurupudi Sattiyya at Satyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurupudi Satyanarayana, v. Kurupudi Sattiyya at Satyam

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

Karneedi Naga Sreenivasa Rao, Vs Sri BhadrakaliSametha Sri Veereswara Swamy Temple

Thorati Vasantha Rao Vs Padala Narayanamma

Sri Ankam Nageswara Rao Vs Pasagadi Gowriswari

Karneedi Naga Sreenivasa Rao, Vs Sri BhadrakaliSametha Sri Veereswara Swamy Temple

Sode Ramanamma Vs Midiyam Radha

Smt.S.Chandrakala, W/o K.Nagabushanam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh