12 Sep 2023 5:10 AM GMT
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the entire plaint has to be considered to find out if it discloses a cause of action that requires determination of court and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Reliance was placed on Apex Court decision in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharasthra (2002) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the entire plaint has to be considered to find out if it discloses a cause of action that requires determination of court and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Reliance was placed on Apex Court decision in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharasthra (2002) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Kasani Narasimhulu v. Sathagowni Srinivas Goud (2013).
The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition against defendants wherein defendants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on certain grounds. The trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, one of the defendants filed the revision petition.
The counsel for petitioner/defendant contended that the trial court failed to understand the purport of rejecting the plaint though it is admitted by the respondent/plaintiff that the exhibited properties were alienated by him under Sale Deeds but they concealed that fact in the suit for partition and claimed equal shares.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent/plaintiff contended that the trial court was right in coming to a conclusion that the contention raised by defendants can be raised at the time of arguments as the suit was coming up for arguments. Furthermore, the plaintiff had disclosed cause of action for filing of the suit in the plaint at the time of institution of suit.
The court perused the material on record and observed that the trial court clearly stated in its impugned order that the scope of petition was very limited and the entire averments in the plaint are to be considered but not one sentence in the plaint. The trial court followed the principle laid down by the Division Bench of Telangana High Court in H. Hari Krishna v. Bandla Balaram (2022).
Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao upheld the order of the trial court as no ingredients under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of CPC were attracted for rejection of plaint. The contentions/objections raised by petitioner could be decided whether it is correct or not only by examining both oral and documentary evidence at length. In Kasani Narsaimhulu (supra) it was held as:
“The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct…”
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.
Counsel for Petitioner/Defendant: Kishore Babu Manne
Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff: Ayesha Azma
Case Title: Katragadda Srinivasa Rao v. Katragadda Subba Rao
Case no.: CRP No. 1100 of 2023
Click Here To Read/Download Order