Dismissed

Puli Ashok Kumar v. Katakam Rajalingu and 3 others

Telangana HC4 Nov 2022CRP/1238/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint due to jurisdictional valuation bar. The Court held no grounds for interference as the trial court correctly framed the valuation issue for determination at trial.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 1238 of 2022 dismissed without costs.

Puli Ashok Kumar Vs Katakam Rajalingu and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY. THE^{FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^{NO: 1238 OF 2022}

¶6

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the^{Constitutionof lndia, againsUaggrievedby} the order daled 17^{-03-2021passedin l.A.No. 3 of 2021in O.S No. 21 of 2007} '^on the file of the Court of Senior^{Civil Judge, at Manthani, Karimnagar District.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Puli Ashok Kumar, S/o.^{Venkatesham, Aged40 years,OccLegalPractitioner,} Ryo. Natave of Rompikunta,^{presently residing at Manthani Village and Mandal,} Peddapalli District

¶9

...'ETIroNER,'ET'r.NER/DEFENDANT^No.2 AND

¶10

'1. Katakam Rajalingu, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged 70 years, Occ Nil, Fyo. Rompikunta Village of Kamanpur Mandal,^{Peddapalli District.}

¶11

Katakam Venkanna,^{S/o. Rajalingu. Aged 40 years, Occ Agriculture, RVo.} Rompikunta Village of Kamanpur^{Mandal, Peddapalli District.}

¶12

Katakam Srinivas, S/o.^{Rajalingu, Aged 30 years, Occ Student,Rl/o.Rompikunta} Village of Kamanpur Mandal,^{Peddapalli District.}

¶13

Puli Venkatesham^{(died),S/o. Laxmaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ Medical} Practitioner,R/o. Rompikunta^{Villageof Kamanpur Mandal, Peddapalli District.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 15'l of^{CPC prayingthat inthe circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be pleasedto grant stayof all} further^proceedings in O.S.^{No.21 of 2007, on the file of the Courtof Senior Civil} Judge, at manthani,^{pending disposal of Civil revision Petition.}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl.T RAMCHANDER RAO}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1to3:SRI MIRZAAIJAZALI BAIG}

¶19

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.4: Not Necessaryas per C.T.}

¶20

The Court made^the following:^ORDER

¶21

7 I

¶22

HONOURABLD Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

CNIL REVISION PETITION No.123B of 2O22

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri T.Ramchander Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as Sri Mirza Aijaz Ali Baig, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

2" Challenge in this Civil Revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, in LA.No.3 of 2O2l in O.S.No.21 of 2007, dated t7.3.2022.

¶27

The petitioner and another, who are the defendants to the suit in question, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., seeking for rejection of plaint. Their request was dishonoured and therefore, one of them is before this Court.

¶28

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the market value of the subject matter of the suit, as per the certificate issued by the Sub_ Registrar, Peddapalli, is Rs.60,000/- per acre and thus, the market value of the suit schedule property, which is Ac.O.32 guntas, is Rs.4B,OOO/- and ttrerefore, the suit {ras

¶29

tri

¶30

DLCSL,I 2 CRP.NL.l23E of²⁰²²

¶31

to be instituted^before the^{Courtof JuniorCivil Judge, but} increasing the market^{value, the suit was wrongly} instituted before the Court^{of Senior Civil Judge and hence,} the petitioner and defendant^{No.l movedan application} seeking the trial^{Court to reject the plaint, but the trial} Court dismissed their^application.

¶32

Per contra, the submission^{of the learned counsel for} respondent Nos. 1 to 3^{is that though the market value of} the suit schedule^{property, as per the certificateissued by} the Sub-Registrar,^{Peddapalli,is Rs.60,0OO/-per acre, the} same is in respect of^{agricultural land, but the suit land} \i/as converted into non-agricultura-l^{land and hence,} narrating the correct^{market value of the land, courtfee} was computed and^{the suit was laid before the proper} forum. Learned^{counsel states that the controversy,if any,} has to be decided by^{the trial Court, at best, by framingan} issue. But, the^{plea taken by the defendants to the suit} cannot form basis for^{rejection of plaint and therefore, the} trial Court rightly^{dismissed the application.}

¶33

The grounds on which^{a plaint can be rejected are} narrated under Order^{VII Rule 11 C.P.C- For better}

¶34

D..CSL, t CRP.No.t2tE of 2022

¶35

¶36

appreciation of the facts, the said provision is placed on

¶37

record.

¶38

'11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the foilowing cases:-

¶39

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

¶40

(b) where the relief claimed is undervaiued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

¶41

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufliciently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do SO;

¶42

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

¶43

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

¶44

(f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.

¶45

Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplyiog of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satislied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause ofan exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, 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."

¶46

7 . By the above provision, it is clear that where the

¶47

plaint does not disclose a cause of action or where the reliql

¶48

4..4

¶49

D..CSL , J CRP.Nd.I2JI ot 2022

¶50

¶51

claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff failed to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the court or where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint 1S written upon a paper insufficiently starnped, and the plaintiff fails to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time fixed by the Court or where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law or where the plaint is not filed in duplicate or where the procedure, on admitting plaint, as laid down under Order VII Rule 9 C.P.C. is not followed, the Court is empowered to reject the plaint.

¶52

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, the present case does not fall under any of the above circumstances. When the order under challenge is gone through, this Court finds that the learned judge of the trial Court has discussed each and every aspect at length and came to a^just conclusion. It is also observed by the iearned^judge of the trial Court that when the suit was coming up for arguments, at that stage, an application for rejection of plaint was filed. Though it is no where indicated in the above provision that the application

¶53

D.-CSL . J CRP.No-1218 of 2022

¶54

¶55

¶56

for rejection of plaint cannot^{be presented at the stage of} arguments, no reasons^{are stated as to why afterlapse of} 14 years of^{presentation of plaint, such an applicationwas} moved. That apart,^{as earlier indicated,the present case} does not fall under^{any of the categoriesenumeratedunder} Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.^{Whether the plaint is properly} valued is to be decided by^{the trial Court by framing an} issue, as rightly submitted by^{the learned counsel for} respondent Nos. 1 to 3.^{Therefore,this Court holds that} there are no^grounds to^{interfere with the orderunder} challenge.

¶57

Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is^dismissed without costs.

¶58

Pending Miscellaneous^{Petitions, if any, shall stand}

¶59

closed.

¶60

¶61

SdAT.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTBAR ,') //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶62

To, 1. The Senior^{Civil Judgeat Manthani, Karimnagar District} 2. One CC to^{Sri T Ramchander Rao, Advocate [OPUC]} 3. One CC to Sri^{Mirza Aijaz Ati Baig, Advocate IOPUC]} 4. Two CD Copies plp

Qnc..'

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/1112022

ORDER

GRP.No.1238^{of 2022}

¶68

v
I i:i
oo t[ J[\ $11.
)
-1..'
:.

¶69

DISMISSING^{THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS}

¶70

Qd.L,

Puli Ashok Kumar v. Katakam Rajalingu and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puli Ashok Kumar v. Katakam Rajalingu and 3 others

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

Mohd Majeed. Khan and another Vs State of Telangana

Chintapandu Naveen Kumar , Teenmar Mallanna Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mohammed Manzoorus Salam Vs The State of Telangana

Toodi Bharat Ratna Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Sri Raavi Venkata Durga Prasad , Raavi Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Venkata Lakshmi Devi and another Vs The State of Telangana and another