Kammila Damodar Rao vs Jillepalli Thandava Krishna Murthy and Another

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 860 of 2003 in the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, claiming a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, as damages. He pleaded that he purchased the premises, comprising of three portions, under a sale deed in the year 1998, from the petitioner, on a representation that the said premises were constructed under a valid permission obtained from the 2nd respondent and that the property is free from any defects, as to the title and permissions. According to him, the 2nd respondent issued a notice proposing to demolish the premises, and thereupon, he filed O.S. No. 501 of 2000 in the Court III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and even while an order of temporary injunction was in force, the 2nd respondent demolished the building on 13-5-2003. He pleaded that he suffered damage, on account of misrepresentation made by the petitioner and high-handed action on the part of the 2nd respondent.

Petitioner filed I.A.No. 606 of 2005 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. According to him, there was no cause of action for filing of the suit and if at all anything, it arose only in the year 1998 and that the suit was barred by limitation. Respondents filed individual counter-affidavits. Through its order, dated 28-3-2006, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.

Sri A. Rama Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that when admittedly, the sale in favour of the 1st respondent was in the year 1998, the cause of action, if at all, vis-a-vis the petitioner had arisen at that time, and the demolition of the building cannot bring about any cause of action in favour of the 1st respondent. He further contends that the demolition is purely an act attributable to the 2nd respondent and no cause of action can be said to have arisen against the petitioner.

Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that the demolition of the building was on the ground that it was constructed without there being any proper permission and such an act is squarely attributable to the petitioner. He contends that the cause of action against the petitioner arose, only when the building is demolished and not earlier thereto.

Smt. G. Jhansi, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that the dispute is mainly between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, and that the premises were demolished, since it was found that the construction was not supported by any valid permission and it was found to be contrary to the sanctioned plan.

Basically, the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., is a task to be undertaken by the Court, if it is found that the plaint suffers from any of the infirmities indicated therein. However, it is also open to the defendants in a suit to file an application for rejection of the plaint, duly indicating the grounds therefor. Such an exercise must be undertaken at the threshold, before any major steps are taken in the suit. In the instant case, the petitioner had filed written statement making his stand clear on the merits of the matter. On the basis of the plaint and the written statement, the trial Court had framed issues and is proceeding with the matter.

Even assuming that Order VII does not prescribe any limitation for filing of an application for rejection of plaint, and that such an exercise can be undertaken even at a later stage, it can be resorted to, only when it is established that the plaint was patently defective and such defect could not be noticed at the initial stages. It hardly needs any emphasis that rejection of plaint must be on the grounds specified in Rule 11 of Order VII CPC and benefit of doubt, if any, must be extended to the plaintiff. The reason is that the power of a civil Court to adjudicate civil disputes is unfettered, except where such jurisdiction is specifically taken away, by law.

In the instant case, two grounds were raised by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint, namely, absence of cause of action and bar of limitation. So far as the first aspect is concerned, it is to be seen that the plea of the respondent is that the cause of action commenced with the purchase of property from the petitioner in the year 1998 and continued till demolition of the building on 13-5-2003. He has specifically pleaded that the petitioner represented to him that the premises are covered by valid permit, and that the premises were demolished at a later point of time, on the ground that it does not accord with the sanctioned plan. Subject to proof, this certainly gives rise to a cause of action, on the date of demolition.

As regards limitation also, it needs to be seen that the 1st respondent did not suffer from any detriment as long as the building was intact and the necessity for him to approach the Court, arose only when it was demolished. Viewed from this angle, it cannot be said that the plaint was liable to be rejected. At the most, these grounds can constitute the subject-matter of separate issues, if not already framed and the parties can be permitted to lead evidence and seek adjudication. If the petitioner is of the view that, any additional issues are to be framed, it shall be open to him to do so. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision.

The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.