APHC010426352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN/AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2144 OF 2025 Between: 1. KAJA VENKATA SUBBA RAO,, S/O KAJA VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT _ YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 14- 5-5, ANDHRARATNAM ROAD, MACHHA NARASAIAH VEEDHI,HANUMANPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GUNTAGANI CHITTEMMA, W/o Ravi Kumar Aged about _ years, Hindu, R/o. Surya Towers, Eluru Road Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent:-- 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was the defendant in O.S.No.57 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, filed by the plaintiff/respondent, for recovery of money. The suit was decreed on 21.11.2014. The decree attained finality. In execution, some orders were passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to those orders, the auction was scheduled. 4. The proceedings of the execution case are not under challenge. It appears that the petitioner filed I.A.No.575 of 2023 in O.S.No.57 of 2014, to set aside the decree termed as ex parte decree. The said application was filed with a delay of 3028 days, accompanied by application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said application has been rejected by the order dated 20.11.2024, which is under challenge. 5. The present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed after a delay of 175 3 days, accompanied by I.A.No.1 of 2025, an application seeking condonation of the said delay. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant/petitioner satisfied the decree but the same has not been believed and accepted by the Trial Court as the settlement was not in the Court through proper proceedings but was out of Court. 7. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the rejection is on the ground that there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay of 3028 days. Even before this Court, it could not be argued that there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The order records that the defendant appeared in the suit. So it is not a case of non-service of summons. The learned Trial Court has recorded the reasons for rejection of the application. The application was filed highly belatedly and there was no sufficient cause. In the absence of any sufficient cause, the delay cannot be condoned. The Trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A. 8. I do not find any case for interference with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is also dismissed. 4 10. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 22.08.2025 Pab 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI C.R.P. NO: 2144/2025 Date:- 22.08.2025 Pab 6 7 Separate sheet The expression ‘law’ in ‘barred by any law’ in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. includes not only legislature enactments but also the judicial precedents. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants could not show as to by which provision of law under the statute or the authority i.e the judgments the suit for partition was barred. Ultimately, the plaintiffs may not succeed something different from the suit being barred by any law. In Bhargavi Constructions vs Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy,1 the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as under in paras 27 to 32: “27. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edn.) defines the expression “law”. It says that “law” includes the “judicial precedents” (see at p. 962). Similarly, the expression “law” defined in Jowett’s Dictionary of English Law (3rd Edn., Vol. 2, (pp. 1304/1305) says that “law is derived from judicial precedents, legislation or from custom. When derived from judicial precedents, it is calledcommon law, equity, or admiralty, probate or ecclesiastical law according to the nature of the courts by which it was originally enforced”. 28. The question as to whether the expression “law” occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code 1(2018) 13 Supreme Court Cases 480 8 includes “judicial decisions of the Apex Court” came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Virendra Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. The Division Bench dealt with the issue in detail in the context of several decisions on the subject and held in para 15 as under: (SCC OnLine All) “15. Law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. An authoritative judgment of the courts including higher judiciary is also law.” 29. This very issue was again considered by the Gujarat High Court (Single Bench) in Hermes Marines Ltd. v. Capeshore Maritime Partners FZC¹ The learned Single Judge examined the issue and relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court quoted supra held in para 53 as under: (Hermes case, SCC OnLine Guj) “53. In the light of the above discussion, in the considered view of this Court, it cannot be said that the term “barred by any law” occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code, ought to be read to mean only the law codified in a legislative enactment and not the law laid down by the courts in judicial precedents. The judicial precedent of the Supreme Court in Liverpool & London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I¹, has been followed by the decision of the Division Bench in Croft Sales & Distribution Ltd. v. M.V. Basil. It is, 9 therefore, the law as of today, which is that the Geneva Convention of 1999 cannot be made applicable to a contract that does not involve public law character. Such a contract would not give rise to a maritime claim. As discussed earlier, the word “law” as occurring in Order 7 Rule 11(d) would also mean judicial precedent. If the judicial precedent bars any action that would be the law.” 30. Similarly, this very issue was again examined by the Bombay High Court (Single Judge) in Shahid S. Sarkar v. Mangala Shivdas Dandekar². The learned Judge placed reliance on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Virendra Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and the Gujarat High Court in Hermes Marines Ltd. and held as under: (Shahid case, SCC OnLine Bom paras 18& 19) “18. The law laid down by the highest court of a State as well as the Supreme Court, is the law. In fact, Article 141 of the Constitution of India categorically states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territories of India. There is nothing even in CPC to restrict the meaning of the words “barred by any law” to mean only codified law or statute law as sought to be contended by Mr Patil. In the view that I have taken, I am supported by a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Hermes Marines Ltd. 10 19. One must also not lose sight of the purpose and intention behind Order 7 Rule 11 (d). The intention appears to be that when the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the courts will not unnecessarily protract the litigation and proceed with the hearing of the suit. The purpose clearly appears to be to ensure that where a defendant is able to establish that the plaint ought to be rejected on any of the grounds set out in the said Rule, the Court would be duty-bound to do so, so as to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the court’s resources being used up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. A litigation, which in the opinion of the court, is doomed to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass a defendant.” 31. Similarly, issue was again examined by the High Court of Jharkhand (Single Judge) in Mira Sinha v. State of Jharkhand. The learned Judge, in para 7 held as under: (SCC OnLine Jhar) “7. In the background of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC application is maintainable only when the suit is barred by any law. The expression “law” included in Rule 11(d) includes the law of limitation and, it would also include the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 11 32. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Allahabad, Gujarat, Bombay and Jharkhand High Courts in the aforementioned four decisions which, in our opinion, is the proper interpretation of the expression “law” occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. This answers the first submission of the learned counsel for the respondents against the respondents.” On the aspect of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. recently in Uma Devi and others vs Anand Kumar and others,2 referring to the previous judgment in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal3 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under in para 16: “16. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, this Court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: (SCC pp. 178-79, para 7) “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observethat the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entireand meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense 2(2025) 5 SCC 198 3 2017(13) SCC 174 12 of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertainedand the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” . 13 The question as to whether the suit is barred by any law would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the entitlement of the plaintiffs for the claim made depends upon the leading of evidence, which can be done only during trial. 14 *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI + CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1899 OF 2025 % Dated: ...2025 # G.Srihari Rao and 4 others ……Petitioners and Gundapu Vijaya Madhavarao and 6 others …….Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Y.V.Sitarama Sarma ^ Counsel for the Respondents : -- < GIST : > HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : IN THE HIGH COUR 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1899 of 2025 G.Srihari Rao and 4 others … Petitioners and Gundapu Vijaya Madhavarao and 6 others ….. Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: .2025 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals. 3. Whether Their Lordship wishes Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment? ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J 16