APHC010533292023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2719/2023 Between: Kolli Siva Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Kandra Venkata Narayana ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PARTY IN PERSON The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2719 of 2023 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 06.10.2023 in I.A.No.932 of 2023 in O.S.No.104 of 2016 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, in rejecting the application of the Petitioners/Defendants in seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 2. The Respondent is the Plaintiff and the suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- said to have been given to the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 and to pay interest thereon. 3. The facts leading to the institution of the suit are as follows:- The Plaintiff had met the Defendants and the Defendants had informed the Plaintiff that one Shaik Rahim, resident of Vijayawada was willing to sell an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of agricultural land located in Sy.Nos.16, 17 & 18 at Eedulapalem Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District abutting NH-16 near Triplar School for total consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. Believing the words of the Defendants, the Plaintiff claimed to have made payments to the Defendants on 14.06.2011, 01.07.2011, 04.07.2011 and 13.07.2011 by cash of Rs.7,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.330/- and Rs.320/- respectively. It was also pleaded that the amounts were paid by mortgaging the gold ornaments of Plaintiff’s wife with the Arundelpet Branch of SBI, Guntur and with the Market Branch of SBI, Narasaraopet. 4. On insistence of the Plaintiff, the receipt of total consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- was electronically acknowledged by the Defendants on 22.02.2013. Subsequently, the Plaintiff realized that the Defendants had 3 misused the sale consideration for their personal use and had fabricated bogus documents of the proposed land to induce the Plaintiff to enter into transaction for the said amount. A criminal case was also registered against the Defendants in Cr.No.286 of 2015 punishable under Sections 420, 120(b) and 506 IPC on the file of the Pattabhipuram Police Station. Since the amounts due to the Plaintiff were not paid, the suit was filed on 20.02.2016 for recovery of Rs.42,30,624/-. 5. The Defendants filed I.A.No.932 of 2013 seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation since the amounts were paid in the year 2011 and the suit was filed in the year 2016 and the trial Court rejected the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Kandra Venkata Narayana (Party-in-person). 7. The counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected since the amounts were paid in the year 2011 and the suit for recovery of money is filed in the year 2016 is ex facie barred by limitation. Though the other grounds were also urged vis-a-vis the merits of the claim, the same are not required to be examined in this case. The party- in-person submitted that there are no merits in the application and that the suit is within time considering the specific plea of acknowledgment of the Defendants dated 22.02.2013. 8. Having heard both sides, this Court is of the opinion that there is a specific averment in the plaint at paragraph 8 that the Defendants had electronically acknowledged the amounts given by the Plaintiff on 22.02.2013 and the same was referred to in the cause of action paragraph also. Considering that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should be considered strictly on the basis of averments of the plaint, 4 the plea of the Petitioners that the suit is barred by limitation may not be sustained at this stage. Further, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Defendants filed their written statement and the trial Court on 03.10.2024 had framed the additional issues, which read as under:- 1) Whether the suit claim is enforceable under Law and plaintiff has any right to seek for recovery? 2) Whether the electronic acknowledgment of third party i.e. daughters of the Defendants is proper acknowledgment and binds the Defendants? 3) Whether the suit claim is barred by Law of Limitation and filed within the period of Limitation? 9. As the specific issue with regard to electronic acknowledgment and the issue of limitation were framed, the issue of limitation urged by the Petitioner is left open to be urged in the suit. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 05.02.2025 IS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2719 of 2023 Date: 05.02.2025 IS