IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 918 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Revision Petition, set aside the Order in I.A.No.140 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2013 dated 22.01.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Piler, allow I.A.No.l40 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2013 on the file of the learned the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Piler, consequently reject the Plaint in O.S.No.21 of 2013 on the file of the learned the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Piler. Between: N.Ramesh Babu, S/o Venkatramaiah Chetty, Hindu, Aged about 53 years, R/o Chinnagottigallu Village, Post and Mandal, Tirupati. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT t AND G.Purnachandra Rao, S/o Vykuntham, Aged about 60 Years, Hindu, R/o D.No.7 -10/1, Pottisreeramulu Centram, Jaggayyapeta Post and Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF B.V.Venugopal,, Aged about 49 Years, Previously worked as SI of Police, Bhakarapet PS, Presently working at Tirumala, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT «:< lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 21 of 2013 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Piler, Chittoor District, A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner ? : SRI BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI V N V SURYA DATTU Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010191502024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AA/IARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT the honourable ms justice CIVIL REVISIOM petition Mn- PRADESH [3311] FIVE B S BHANUMATHI 918/2024 Between: N.Ramesh Babu -PETITIONER AND G Purnachandra Rao and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.V.N.V.SURYADATTU The Court made the following: -RESPONDENT{S) 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.918 of 2024 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order, dated 22.01.2024, dismissing I.A.No.140 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Filer, filed by the defendant under Order VII rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. St The revision petitioner herein is the 1®' defendant and the 1 3. respondent is the plaintiff. The case of the petitioner/1®* defendant, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, is as follows; 4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of damages on the ground that they have done malicious acts against the plaintiff. The defendants filed written statement resisting the suit. a. St The plaintiff is doing jaggery business and has dealing with the 1 On the assurance of the plaintiff, the 1®‘ defendant snet a jiggery load, i.e., 340 bags each weighing 50 Kgs each worth of a lorry bearing No.AP 16 X 5182., vide way bill On 20.05.2024, the driver of the b. defendant. Rs.1,39,400/- in No.3791889, dated 29.05.2024. vehicle handed over the load to the plaintiff at Jaggayyapeta in the 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.918 of 2024 godown of the plaintiff and took the lorry rent and when enquired about the load of jiggery, the plaintiff replied that the load was handed over to Chandrasekhar, When the defendant contacted K. Chandrasekhar for payment, he denied of receiving the load of jaggery. Thereafter, the 1®‘ defendant along with others went to Jaggayyapeta and called the plaintiff and K.Chandrasekhar together and enquired about the load. They both blame each other with an intention to cheat the 1®' defendant without paying the amount and thus committed criminal breach of trust with common intention. Basing on the complaint of the 1®' defendant, the 2"*^ defendant who was the then Sub Inspector of Police, Bhakarapet P.S registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. During the course of investigation, the 2'^'^ defendant arrested the plaintiff near Lakshmi Traders Godown of the plaintiff at Jaggayyapeta and seized 184 bags of jaggery pertaining to the case under the cover of a mahazarnama in the presence of the mediators and on the same day, at 4 PM, and further the defendant No.2 arrested K. Chandrasekhar at Huzurnagar bus stand and sent the plaintiff and K.Chandrasekhar for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, the 2"^ defendant filed charge sheet against the plaintiff and Chandrasekhar before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piler and the same was numbered as C.C.No.264 of 2004. After full-fledged trial, the learned Judicial First 'V 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.918 of 2024 % Class Magistrate, Filer, acquitted both the accused on 14.08.2012. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit for wrongful gain. After passing of the acquittal order in C.C.No.264 of 2004, the 1®‘ defendant preferred Criminal Appeal No.312 of 2012. After full-fledged hearing, the appeal was allowed by judgment, dated 31.03.2022, by the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Filer, by setting aside the judgment, dated 14.08.2012, in C.C.No.264 of 2004 and remanded the matter to the trial Court. Hence, this petition. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter denying the allegations and c. further contending that the plaint cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit. The defendants filed this petition in order to defeat the interest of the plaintiff. It is finally prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred this revision. 5. The revision petitioner/defendant mainly raised the following 6. grounds:- The order of acquittal in C.C.No.264 of 2004 on the file of (i) the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Filer, has 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.918 of 2024 been set aside in appeal, vide Criminal Appeal No.312 of 2012 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Filer, by remanding the matter to the trial Court; and thus, as on date, the 1®' respondent/plaintiff is accused till the disposal of C.C.No.264 of 2004 and thus, he cannot file the suit for malicious prosecution and cannot seek damages as there is no cause of action; A suit for malicious prosecution could not have been filed (ii) during the pendency of the appeal as against the order of acquittal and therefore,the suit was perse premature; (iii) As per article 74 of the Limitation Act, the limitation for damages for malicious prosecution would commence from the date of either the acquittal or termination of prosecution; (iv) Though filing of an appeal does not ipso facto vacate an order of acquittal, yet while the appeal is pending, it can hardly be said that the prosecution was terminated; The suit could not have been filed during the pendency of (V) the appeal and the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground that the prosecution has not yet come to an end; (vi) The plaint is conspicuously silent about the cause of action; 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.918 of 2024 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the events 7. that had happened subsequent to filing of the suit shall also be taken into consideration as the cause of action shall exist as on the date of In this filing of the suit and shall thereafter for survival of the suit, regard, he placed on record the decision of the Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and others . “22. While examining this question we will have to consider whether the court can take cognizance of a subsequent event to decide whether the pending suit should be disposed of or kept alive. If so, can a defendant make an application under Section 151 CPC for dismissing the pending suit on the ground the said suit has lost its cause of action. This Court in the case of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders^ has held thus; "We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis-a-vis circumstances which come into being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court ^ (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 168 ^(1975) 1 see 770 7 BSBJ C.R.P.No.918 of 2024 and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equality justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is not violated, with a view to promote substantial justice — subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are crapulously obeyed." 23. In the very same case, this Court quoted with approval a judgment of the Supreme Court of United States in Patterson V. State of Alabama 294 US 600 wherein it was laid down thus: "We have frequently held that in the exercise of cur appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment under review but to make such ’V 8 BSB,J C.R.P.No.918 of 2024 k And in deposition of the case as justice requires determining what justice does require, the Court is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervened since the judgment was entered." 24. Almost similar is the view taken by this Court in the case . N.K. Bhattacharjee and Ors.^ wherein this of J.M. Biswas v Court held ; has lost its relevance due The dispute raised in the case of time and subsequent events which have to passage taken circumstances, continuing this litigation wiii be like flogging a dead horse. Such litigation, irrespective of the will neither benefit the parties in the litigation nor place during the pendency of the litigation. In the result, will serve the interests of the Union. 25. Thus it is clear that by the subsequent event if the original debito justitiae, it will proceeding has become infructuous, ex be the duty of the court to take such action as is necessary in the interest of justice which includes disposing of infructuous litigation. For the said purpose it will be open to the parties concerned to make an application under Section 151 of CPC the notice of the court the facts and circumstances made the pending litigation infructuous. Of course. to bring to which have when such an application is made, the court will enquire into and circumstances to find out whether the the alleged facts pending litigation has in fact become infructuous or not. ' (2002) 4 see 68 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.918of 2024 No representation was made on behalf of the 1®' respondent/ 8. plaintiff. In view of the fact that even as on date, the order of remand by the appellate Court is in force, the trial proceedings are pending and consequently the very cause of action for filing the suit does not exist. 9. As such, in the light of the ratio laid down in the above decision of the Supreme Court, for want of cause of action, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 22.01.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Filer, in I.A.No.140 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2013. As a sequel I.A.No.140 of 2022 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT, REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sectTon officer To 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Filer, Chittoor District. 2. One CC to SRI. BUGULU SREETEJA Advocate [OPUC] 3. OneCCto SRI. V.N.V.SURYA DATTU Advocate [OPUC] 4. THREE CD COPIES RDB TAC HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.918 of 2024 THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED