The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject the plaint on merits. The court held that plaintiff's evidence cannot be considered at that stage.
Dismissal of the civil revision petition and disposal of the connected CRP as infructuous.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No.2394 of 2012
Date : 4-10-2012
Between: Yerni Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And Smt. Yerni Padmavathi and others .. Respondents
Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Satyanarayana Counsel for respondent No.l : Sri M. Karuna Sagar
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 27-3-2012 in I.A.No.1077/2011 in O.S.No.7/2008 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
The petitioner is defendant No.2 in the suit filed by respondent No.1 for recovery of money allegedly misappropriated by the former. The petitioner has filed the above mentioned I.A. under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for rejection of the plaint. The basis on which the said application was filed was that in the criminal proceedings simultaneously initiated by respondent No.1 against the petitioner, the former has given evidence to the effect there was no misappropriation at all and that the latter has not misappropriated any amount and that due to family disputes she has filed the complaint.
The law is well settled that an application for rejection of the plaint can be considered only on the plaint averments. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the plaint averments do not disclose cause of action or that the plaint is barred by any law. The alleged deposition of respondent No.1/plaintiff constitutes a piece of evidence which can be appreciated only after a full fledged trial by the Court trying the suit. Such evidence cannot be considered in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any
error in the order of the lower Court dismissing the petitioner’s application seeking rejection of the plaint. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP No.3188 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date: 4-10-2012 AM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether evidence of the plaintiff can be considered in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yerni Satyanarayana
Smt. Yerni Padmavathi
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
