Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of a petition under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to dismiss a suit for permanent injunction. The court held that lack of locus standi is a question of fact for the trial court.
Revision petition dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5239 of 2008
ORDER:
Elaborate arguments are advanced on merits in the civil revision petition. So, I have taken up the civil revision petition for hearing and disposal.
The petitioner/first defendant filed I.A.No.634 of 2007 in O.S.No.4754 of 2002 in the Court of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to dismiss I.A.No.974 of 2002 and the suit as not maintainable. The first respondent filed the suit against the petitioner and others for permanent injunction when the petitioner/first defendant was allegedly raising pillars in temple land for making constructions. The suit is filed in the year 2002 and it has been pending in the lower Court for the last eight years. As the matter now stands, trail of the suit is half way through. At that stage the petitioner/first defendant came up with this petition before the lower Court. The ground on which the petitioner filed the petition in the lower Court is that the first respondent has no locus standi to file the suit.
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. provides for rejection of plaint in the following circumstances, namely:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamppapers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff”
It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is order dated 29.10.2003 passed by this Court in writ petition No.22653 of 2003 confirming order of the Commissioner of Endowments passed in September, 2003 remitting the matter for further enquiry as to adjudication under Section 87(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and that therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as a person belonging to family of the founder trustee of the temple.
Whether the plaintiff/first respondent has got locus standi or not, is a question of fact which has to be decided by the trial court after full trial and after recording evidence to be let in by both the parties. A plaint can be rejected in case it is barred by any law. The petitioner’s counsel could not point out any law which prohibits a suit of this nature filed in the lower court. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that previous order passed by this Court is a law and therefore, first respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The contention that order passed by this Court
is a law, is a misconceived one. It is only a piece of evidence or a document which dealt with the contentions between the parties to that proceedings and it is no law. It is only the Supreme Court which can lay down a law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and verdict of the Supreme Court becomes law of the land. At best, an order or judgment passed either by this Court or any other Court operates as resjudicata under Section 11 C.P.C. It is for the petitioner to place the order rendered by this Court in the previous writ petition along with orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Endowments before the lower Court and make submissions with regard to locus standi of the plaintiff/first respondent to file the suit. The lower Court rightly dismissed the petition filed for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.
______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
08.12.2010 lvl cc in one week bo lvl
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5239 of 2008
Dt. 08.12.2010
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
08.12.2010 lvl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. if the plaintiff lacks locus standi.
Whether a prior order of this Court constitutes a law barring a suit under Section 11 C.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER/FIRST DEFENDANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
