1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2130 OF 2022 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 set aside the Orders dated 22.10.2019 passed in C.F.R.No.1534/2019 in numbered suit passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla, Guntur District by allowing the CRP. Between: Khajjam Satyanarayana, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o.D.No.10-131, Municipal Office Road, Near Gupta Complex, Piduguralla, Guntur District. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Kapilavai Vijaya Kumar, S/o.Kasi Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 72 years, Occ. Business, R/o.D.No.337, Street No.220, 0pp. Income Tax Office, Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 2. Kakumanu Sivaram, S/o. Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o.D.No.235, Street No.lOO, Beside Marmem Pulla Reddy ZP High School, PPiduguralla, Guntur District. V 3. Gade Koti Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged about 62 Occ. Cultivation, R/o.Opp. Brahmamgari village, Karampudi Mandal, Guntur District. 4. Kolisetti Kumara Swamy, S/o.Narasimha years, Occ. Business, R/o.D.No.118, Street No.700, Near Julakanti Srinivasa Rao House, Janapadu Road, Piduguralla years. Temple, China Garlapadu ( Rao, Hindu, aged about 49 , Guntur District. 5. Pasam Venkata Narasimha Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu about 43 aged Near Kollipara Piduguralla, Guntur District. years, Om Business, R/o.D.No.7-406/1 Lakshmamma House, Behind Union Bank, ...Respondents/Defendants SRI SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHI VIJAY riVII revision petition No. 2130 of 2022 ORDER:- The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order passed the file of the learned Junior 1. in C.F.R.No.1534 of 2019, dated 22.10.2019 on Civil Judge, Piduguralla. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the this Petition is squarely in C.R.P.No.821 of 2021, dated would submit that the issue involved in petitioner covered by the order passed by this Court in 25.11.2024, and requested to pass a Accordingly, the present of C.R.P.No.821 of 2021, dated 25 this Court i.e. from the date of filing similar order in this petition also. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in terms 4. .11.2024. However, the time spent before of the Civil Revision Petition to the date shall be excluded for calculation of of receipt of certified copy of the order the limitation for filing regular first Appeal before the concerned Court. 5. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.821 of 2021, dated 25.11.2024. No costs. miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this As a sequel thereto, the Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REC^TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Junior Civil Judge. Piduguralla, Guntur District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 4. Three CD Copies y Pmg sree HIGH COURT VN,J DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2130 of 2022 ANDS^ tP g 0 7 MAR 2075 S) ^.. Current Section . » DISPOSING THE CRP € tv APHC010266532021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTlCE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: «?1/?n9i [3460] Between: Pothula Venkata Raman Reddy, and Others AND ...PETITIONER{S) The Tahsildar and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(§) ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. 2.C PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION N0.821 of 2091 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code questioning the Order dated 07.04.2021 passed in O.S (SR) No.1135 of 2021 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa in rejecting the plaint. 2. The Petitioners are the Plaintiffs. The suit was filed in representative capacity to protect the Government land meant for public. It was pleaded that the Plaintiffs are homeless persons, eligible for grant of house sites and had made several applications to the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 for grant of house site pattas. 3. it is the plea of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs that they have personal and common interest over the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property is a Government land and classified ‘assed waste’ of Chinna Chowtapalli Village within the limits of Chemmumiahpet Village fields and that the Government was intending to prepare a layout for allotment of same to the weaker sections. While so, the Defendant Nos.4 to 7 had created a registered document for the suit schedule property with the cooperation of the Defendant Nos.1 to 3. as 4. It was pleaded that the Defendant No.1 mutated the names of the private individuals in the Web land Adangal. Further, N. Eragam Reddy fabricated a Sale Deed dated 18.12.2004 by impersonating one N. Subhan Singh in respect of the suit schedule property. As the land-in-question was classified as ‘assessed waste’ of one 3^ 4, Government, with an intention to protect the schedule property, the suit was filed for declaration that the property is the Government land and to declare the Sale Deed dated 17.10.2020 registered vide document bearing No.6936/2020 as null, void and not binding on the public. The trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Heard M/s Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. 6. Before going into the merits of the case, this Court on earlier hearings had posed a question to the counsel for the Petitioners as to how the Revision can be maintained, as the plaint was rejected on merits. The rejection was on account that the Petitioners did not have locus standi or cause of action. In response, the contention of the counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs was that the only remedy available to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is the Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the plaint was rejected even before numbering the suit. 7. 8. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioners cited certain Judgments of this Court, where the Revisions were entertained when the plaints were rejected before numbering the suit viz., N.Savithri & Others vs* N.Hanmappa & Others\ Sri M.Bala Shirish & Others vs. Sri Shiyraj Heda & Another^, Chilamakuri '(2017) 1 ALT 287 '(2016) 6 ALT 324 4 Suresh Babu vs. Owk SreenivasUlu & Another^ and Saibaba Kirana & General Merchant, Banswada vs. Manjira Chit Fund Company, Banswada^. In the above cited Judgments, the issue with regard to the maintainability of Revision was not raised and the Judgments were rendered with rdfetence to the facts of the As such, they may not be of help to the question of maintainability of this Revision. ^ cases. 9. The Judgment in Smt.Kavitha Balaji and Another The State of Telangana^ cited by the counsel for the Petitioners a case, where a suit, which was rejected before numbering, entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said Judgment, this Court entertained the Revision in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said Judgement is not a precedent to say that the only remedy for the Petitioner, when the plaint is rejected before numbering, is to file a Revision either under Section 115 of CPC of under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. vs. was was 10. The counsel for the Respondents relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in Molugu Ram Reddy vs. Molugu Vittal Reddy and Others® in support of his contention that only Appeal has to be filed under Section 96 of CPC. Though the issue that was referred in Full Bench was whether an Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC should be filed or a regular first Appeal should be filed against an Order/Judgment passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In that context, the Full Bench of this Court held that only a regular first an ^2022 LawSuit (AP) 1001 ^2024) 3 ALD 843 '(2016)6 ALD 493 '(2011) 4 ALT 418 Appeal under Section 96 CPC can be maintained against an order rejecting the plaint. In the reasoning given by the Full Bench of this Court, it was held at Paragraph 17 when a plaint is rejected on account of non-curable defects or curable defects, the remedy for the Plaintiffs is to prefer an Appeal under Section 96 CPC. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:- “17. Whether the suit is dismissed after fuii triai or whether the piaint is rejected either because there are non-curabie defects or curabie defects (which remain un-rectified), the remedy of the Piaintiff is oniy to prefer an appeai under Section 96 of the Code ofCivii Procedure. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the power of rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of cfpc in Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharasthra and Others" held that the rejection of the plaint can be done even before numbering of the suit. Paragraph 9 thereof is extracted below:- "9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which to be looked into for deciding application there under are the averments in the plaint The trial Court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit - before registering thn plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at time before the conciusiori of the trial. For the an purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement ^ (2003) 1 see 557 6 would be wholly irrelevant ei tHat 'kage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but the procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the Jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects. 12. A similar view was taken By Ho’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Gbrnmissioner®, Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. Ponniammah Educational Trust^ and R.K Roja V. U.S. Rayudu & Another^° Therefore, in the light of the above Judgment, the contention that the plaint could not have been rejected before numbering cannot be sustained. Once the plaint is rejected on merits, the remedy to the Petitioners is to file a regular first Appeal. The argument for the Petitioners that as plaint was rejected even before numbering. Revision alone has to be maintained cannot be sustained. 13. In the present case, the plaint was rejected by going into the locus standi of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and consequential lack of cause of action. Therefore, as the impugned order is passed in substance is ‘rejection of plaint’ and the only remedy for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs would be to file the Appeal. ^2004 (3) see 137 '2012 (8) see 706 '“2016(14) see 275 V 7 Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, maintainable. However, the time spent before this Court i.e. from the date of filing of the Civil Revision Petition till the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, shall be excluded for calculation of the limitation for filing regular first Appeal before the concerned Court. 14. as not There shall be no order applications, if any, shall stand closed. as to costs. As a sequel, pending NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.11.2024 IS