Partly allowed

Dr.Muralidhar Rao v. Smt.Bhagawati Devi

Telangana HC21 Nov 2014CRP/3878/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the civil revision petition, setting aside the lower court's order which dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The lower court had failed to address the petitioner's pleas that the suit was barred under endowment laws and limitation periods.

What did the court decide?

The order in IA.No.236 of 2014 was set aside, and the application was directed to be disposed afresh. The CRP was allowed.

Dr.Muralidhar Rao Vs Smt.Bhagawati Devi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3878 OF 2014

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 12.09.2014, passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum_VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in IA.No.236 of 2014 in OS.No.62 of 2013, wherein the Court below has dismissed the petitioner filed by the petitioners/defendants, under Order-VII, Rule-11 of CPC, for rejecting the suit.

¶5

The case of the petitioners is that the relief claimed in OS.No.62 of 2013 by the respondents/plaintiffs is barred under Section 151 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, as the property involved is Endowment property. They also contend that when once suit is barred under the provisions of any law, t he Civil Court cannot entertain the suit under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code and the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII, Rule11 D of CPC. It is also the case of the petitioners that the suit also barred by limitation since the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit belatedly though they attained majority more than 12 years back of filing the suit.

¶6

Though a specific plea is taken for rejecting the plaint, the Court below has not adverted to the specific pleas taken by the petitioners, but, only dismissed the application holding that the same is premature to determine at the threshold. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on several Judgments, the Court below though adverted to the same but not considered the same.

¶7

As the Court below has disposed the interlocutory application without considering the pleas raised, I set aside the order in IA.No.236 of 2014 in OS.No.62 of 2013, and the Court below is directed to dispose

¶8

of the IA.No.236 of 2014 in OS.No.62 of 2013 afresh, in accordance with law.

¶9

Accordingly the CRP is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 21.11.2014 t k.

Dr.Muralidhar Rao v. Smt.Bhagawati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Muralidhar Rao v. Smt.Bhagawati Devi

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

D.Narsing Rao Vs Geetha Srinivasan

P. Ramanjaneyulu Naidu, Vs K. Kanna Babu

. Vs .

S.Kona Vijay Kumar Vs Sri Kona Srinivas

Bethi Mallamma Vs Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

P. Ravi Varma Babu, Vs K. Santosh Rao