Dismissed

Sapavath Venkateswarlu v. Sri Seetharamanjaneya Finance Palocha

Telangana HC18 Feb 2013CRP/3182/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge arguing lack of jurisdiction for a money recovery suit due to the petitioner being a Scheduled Tribe resident of an Agency Area. The Court held that civil jurisdiction is barred only if the entire cause of action arose in a scheduled area.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs.

Sapavath Venkateswarlu Vs Sri Seetharamanjaneya… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

C.R.P.No.1646 of 2011

¶3

Date: February 18, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sapavath Venkateswarlu

¶6

… Petitioner/defendant

¶7

And:

¶8

Sri Seetharamanjaneya Finance, Paloncha, rep. by its Managing Partner B.Sudhakar

¶9

… Respondent/plaintiff

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No.3182 of 2011

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The defendant in the suit, OS No.95 of 2004, on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Kothagudem, is the petitioner herein. By judgment dated 24.02.2006, the Court below decreed the said suit filed for recovery of money and directed payment of Rs.1,17,700/- with interest on the principal sum of Rs.70,000/- at @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.

¶13

2. The main ground of attack advanced by the petitioner/ defendant is that he is a resident of an Agency Area and belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the money recovery suit filed against him. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in ‘Madavam Venkateswara Rao vs.

¶14

[1] Subordinate Judge, Kothagude m ’ and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5030 and 5036 of 2004 in ‘Nagarjuna Grameena Bank vs. Medi Narayana’, confirming the same.

¶15

3. It is however to be noticed that the judgments relied upon make it clear that only in cases where the whole cause of action arose in a scheduled area, the civil Court’s jurisdiction would be barred. In the present case, the plaint in OS No.95 of 2004 reflects that part of the cause of action is stated to have arisen on 10.06.2001 when the defendant executed a pronote. It is not in dispute that this execution of a pronote had taken place in a non-agency area. Therefore, the whole cause of action on which the suit was based is not related to an agency area, whereby the jurisdiction of the civil Court could be held to be barred. This Court therefore finds that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below do not suffer from any jurisdictional flaw as contended in the civil revision petition.

¶16

4. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶17

_______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 18.02.2013 Bss/pab

¶18

[1] 2000(4) ALT 163

Sapavath Venkateswarlu v. Sri Seetharamanjaneya Finance Palocha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapavath Venkateswarlu v. Sri Seetharamanjaneya Finance Palocha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Narsa Raju, Vs Karikal Valaven, I.A.S.

P. Pochaiah, Vs Sri. A.K. Khan

M/s Kaveri Restaurant (Food and Beverages) Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department Vs Nanjala Satyanarayana

Mohammad Ismail, Vs Sri Dupaguntal Satyanarayana Vara Prasad

Toopran Srinivas Vs Sri K.Venkateswara Rao