Allowed

Chillara Bharathamma and 2 Others v. the Chairman Cum M.D, Apcpdcl and 4 Others

Telangana HC14 Oct 2022CRP/2684/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the trial court erred in returning the plaint on limitation grounds. Since the plaintiffs invoked Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the trial court could not question merits or limit liability at the scrutiny stage. The revision was allowed, setting aside the return order.

What did the court decide?

Order impugned set aside; trial court directed to register suit if otherwise in order; no order as to costs.

Chillara Bharathamma and 2 Others Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 2684 OF 2011

¶7

Petition under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, againsUaggrieved by the Orderdated. 18-1-2011 in Unregistered O.S.SR No. 1841 of^{2010on the file of the} Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chillara Bharathamma W/o Anjaiah, aged about 39 years, Occ. agriculture labour

¶10

Chillara Matchyagiri s/o Anjaiah, aged about 21^years, occ: Student

¶11

Chillara Mamatha d/o Late Anjaiah, aged about 19^years, Occ:^student Petitioners/Plai ntiffs

¶12

AND

¶13

ln Re

¶14

The Chairman cum Managing Director, APCPDCL,corporate Officer, Near Mint Compound, Hyderabad

¶15

The Superintending Engineer^(Operation), APCPDCL, Near Bus Stand, Nalgonda town & District

¶16

The Divisional Engineer (operations), APCPDCL, Bhongir town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶17

The Asst,. Divisional Engineer^(Operation), APCPDCL, Ramannapet,

¶18

6 i;J::I ff::::, Engineer (operation),s ApcpDCL, Varigonda vinage and Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶19

..RE S P O ND EN Ts/defend a nts

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. L PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENI(ATESHWARA REDDY

¶25

C.R.P.No.2684 of 2O11

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs assailing the order dated 18.01 .2Oll in unregistered OS (SR) No.184i of 2O1O on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

¶28

As per the order impugned, the plaint was returned with an observation that the limitation is covered under Article 82 of the Limitation Act and the suit is filed beyond two years from the date of fatal accident which took place on 08.10.2008.

¶29

Perused the averments of the plaint wherein the plaintiffs have pleaded that the limitation is covered under Article 113 of the Limitation Act and not under Article 82 of the Limitation Act.

¶30

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that at the time of scrutiny, the Registry/ Section is not expected to look into the merits or otherwise

¶31

Page 2 of 4

¶32

AVRJ CRP No.2684 ol2OlI

¶33

of the pleadings and the plaintiffs have pieaded that the suit is covered by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which is a residuary provision and the rimitation is three years. whereas, the trial court instead of registering the suit and issuing summons to the defendants, has taken a view that the suit is covered by Article 82 of the Limitation Act.

¶34

The learned counsel the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs relied upon the principles laid in Thanamki Prasad a. Guntamadugu pullamma and othersr wherein this court has held that at the time of scrutiny of case, no court can appreciate the merits of case and reject the plaint on the ground that the case of the plaintiff is not well founded or devoid of merits. He has also relied on the principles laid in Kudumula Kishore Reddg a. Kudumula Krishna Reddg qnd other* wherein it was dealt with order-7 , Rule- 1 1 of cpc rejection of the plaint, but apparently on perusal of the order impugned, the plaint is only returned and not rejected.

¶35

¶36

1 2oos (41 ALD 242

¶37

2 zolo (sl ALD 232

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

AVRJ CRP 1Jo.2684 of 201^I

¶40

The learned counsel for the revision^petitioners/ plaintiffs would further submit that though the word^is mentioned is 'returned', in fact it amounts to^rejectionof the plaint, since the Section^{has refused} to^{assign number} to the suit on the ground that the suit is^barredby limitation.

¶41

¶42

Therefore, when the facts of the case on hand are tested on the touch stone of the^{principleslaid in the} above decisions, the answer is in the^{positive.The trial} Court is not expected to step into the^{shoes of opposite} party and to reject or return the plaint on the ground that it is not well founded or devoid of merits.^{More particularly} when the plaintiffs have taken a specific^plea that^the limitation in respect of the suit is covered by the^residuary provision under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the Court is not expected to apply the principles laid under Article 82 of the Limitation Act and to reject the plaint. Further, it is for the defendants to raise all such pleas on appearing before the trial Court. In that view of the matter, in my

¶43

? /

¶44

Page 4 of 4

¶45

AVRJ CRP No.2684 of 2Oll

¶46

considered opinion, the trial court has committed a jurisdictional error in returning the plaint.

¶47

In the result, the civil Revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 1B.o 1 .2oll in unregistered os (sR) No.1841 of 2o1o on the file of the learned senior civil Judge, Bhongir, is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to register the suit if it is otherwise in order and it is for the defendants to raise all such pleas on appearance before the trial court. Registry is directed to return the material papers, if any filed by the revision petitioners I pLatntiffs under proper acknowledgement. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending

¶49

in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶50

Sd/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRARS //TRUE COPY/ V SECTION OFFICER

¶51

¶52

To,

¶53