inapnawHar IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY .THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE T O U o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 759 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,aggrieve d by the order dated 30.01.2024 in I.A.No.378 of 2023 in O.S.No.448 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Between: Ik o PI * $ « Cheepulla Seetharam, S/o late Ch. Pentayya, aged about 40 Door No.32010186/34, Flat No.6, 4th Floor, C Block, PragathI Apartment, Near Gokul Theatre, Visakhaptnam-530 016 Professor, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam. years, R/o working as Asssitant ...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND Tapan Kumar Chowdhury,, S/o late gopal Krishna Chowdhury. aged about 48 years, R/o Quarter No.95-C, Sector-i, B Type, Ukkunagaram, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI S RAJAN The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010162262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] ^day, the Seventeenth day of March two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 759 of 2024 • Between: Cheepulla Seetharam ...Petitioner and Tapan Kumar Chowdhury Counsel for the petitioner: ...Respondent 1. P Rajasekhar Counsel for the respondent: I.S.Rajan The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.01.2024 dismissing I.A. No.378 of 2023 in O.S. No.448 of 2013, on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed by the defendant under Order VII, rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC to reject the plaint. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of registered sale deed dated^l 0.03.2010 after adjudging the same as voidable as well void and to qend 2 Hv ■%; a copy of the decree to the concerned registering officer. Later, I.A.No.272 of 2017 was filed by the defendant seeking the trial Court to decide the preliminary point of limitation as the same was filed within the three years time from the date of the sale deed. The petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the defendant filed CRP No. 1051 of 2019 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The revision petition was dismissed on 12.10.2022, holding that it is in the best interest of justice to allow both parties to the suit to agitate their own factual and legal contentions on the issue of limitation before the trial Court during the final hearing of the suit leading to final judgment of the trial Court and that all the observations made by the trial Court should not hinder the trial Court while deciding the suit including issue no.6 on limitation. So, the defendant preferred SLP (Civil) No.6750 of 2023 before the Supreme Court. The SLP was dismissed on 03.03.2023 observing that the trial Court shall proceed to hear and decide the issue no.6 as directed by the High Court in the body of the judgment in accordance with law. issue on Even then, the defendant filed the petition in I.A.No.378 of 2023 on the same question of plea of limitation, however by citing the observations of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos.5819-5822 of 2021 decided on 21.09.2021 as follows: 3. Para 5 In the said suit, the defendants filed two applications being GA Nos. 1688 and 1571 of 2017, inter alia, seeking dismissal of the suit or in the alternative rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action and the relief as claimed in the plaint could not be granted. 3 CRPNo.759 of 2024 • • , y Para 16 Thus, none of reliefs sought for in the plaint can be granted to the under the law. The question then arises whether such suit should be allowed to continue and go for trial. The answer in our view is clear, that is, such suit should be thrown at the threshold. Para 19 23.4 The whole purpose of confinement of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove to be abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court and exercise the mind of respondent. The sword of Damocles need not kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point of purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action." 12 Para 20 However, under Order VII rule 11 CPC, the duty is cast upon the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any other law. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.’’ Further, the petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on 30.09.2022 in Civil Appeal No.500 of 2022 which reads as follows: A 4 CRP Para 12 The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not on formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 Code taking care that the ground mentioned therein are fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. It is needless to observe that the power under order 7 rule 11 can be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit. 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 earliest stage.” Therefore, in the light of the above observations, the petitioner / defendant stated that application to reject the plaint can be filed at any stage of the suit. It is further stated that the further cross-examination of DW.1 and further evidence if any taken would protract the proceedings unnecessarily as the relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted and therefore, the further proceedings are abortive. 4. The petition was resisted by the plaintiff by filing counter, while denyingthe contentions of the petitioner, further stating that though the power under Order VII, rule 11 CPC can be exercised at any stage of the suit, in view of the order of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.6750 of 2023 (referred supra), the petitioner cannot raise the same ground by merely quoting another provision of law and there^fore, in view of the order of the Supreme Court, the issue of limitation can 5 CRP No.759of 2024 be decided during the final hearing of the suit. That apart, the respondent contended that the suit is well within the period of limitation. It is also contended that already the suit reached the stage of cross examination of DW.1 and it only delays the trial. Therefore, the respondent requested to dismiss the petition. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petition for preliminary issue on limitation was dismissed as aforesaid and in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot seek rejection of plaint on the same ground of limitation. 5. 6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed on the same grounds as in the petition. The learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent argued as in the petition and the counter. 7. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr LRs & Others\ it was held at paragraph 12 as follows; “12.1 We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: 11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; Civil Appeal No.9519 of 2019, dated 09.07.2020 1 6 CRP No.759 of 2024 X (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. / \ 7 CRPNo.759 of 2024 In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp. SCC 315, this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words : “12. ... The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.” 12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under; Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document \ 8 CRP referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 12.5 In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. 12.6 At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 see 137] 12.7 The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. V. M.V. Sea Success I & Another, (2004) 9 SCC 512 which reads as : In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614 the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. [D. Ramachandran v. / 9 R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also VIjay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941]. 12.8 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 12.9 The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summonsto the defendant, or before conclusionof the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 . The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case (supra). 12.10 The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint”. In ELDECO Housing and Industries Limited Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Others^, it was held at paragraph 19 as follows: 9. “19. The law applicable for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was summed up by this Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives. Relevant parts of paragraph 23 thereof are extracted below:” ^[2023] 16S.C.R. 872 \ 10 In Nilima Bose v. Santosh Kumar Ghosh^, it was held at paragraphs 10 & 11 as follows: 10. “10. Admittedly in the instant case the respondent filed an application for framing an issue regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction and in course of disposal of the said petition learned Munsif found that as he has no pecuniary jurisdiction he directed return of the plaint. Jurisdictional ground may be of diverse nature, including pecuniary and territorial. Every Court, while entertaining any suit or appeal has the duty to examine whether it has the pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain such matters and to enable the courts to return the plaint, after the same has been wrongly entertained, that the provision of Order (vii), rule 10 of the C.P.C. is made to pass such order at every point of time. 11. It is therefore clear that if at any time it is apparent to the Court on the averment in the plaint itself that it has no jurisdiction, either pecuniary or territorial, to entertain the matter the court can always direct return of the plaint under the provisions of 0.7, R.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 needs to be framed for that purpose. Since the Court always retains its jurisdiction to examine the plaint as it is framed for the purpose of examining its jurisdiction prima facie that court is entitled to pass an order for return of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It should be remembered in this connection that no court can blindly accept any plaint without prima facie satisfaction of its jurisdiction to entertain the matter and it is therefore no good saying that in every case the court is under an ^ AIR 1997 Cal 202 11 CRPNo.759 of 2024 obligation to frame a preliminary issue for the purpose of such prima facie satisfaction in the matter." 11. In Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another'*, at paragraph 26 as follows: “26. At this juncture, we wish to observe that we are not unmindful of the position of law that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. However, in cases like this, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial Court. We again place it on record that this is not a case where any forgery or fabrication is committed which had recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff and his predecessors did not take any steps to assert their title and rights in time. The alleged cause of action is also found to be creation of fiction. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The High Court also erred in affirming the same, keeping the question of limitation open to be considered by the trial Court after considering the evidence along with other issues, without deciding the core issue on the basis of the averments made by the Respondent No. 1 in the Plaint as mandated by Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. The Courts by being reluctant only cause more harm to the defendants by forcing them to "2024 INSC ^1025 12 CRPNo.759of 2024 undergo the ordeal of leading evidence. Therefore, we hold that the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold.” The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Salim D Agboatwala and others Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and others® at paragraphs 7, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 26 as follows; 7. The rejection of plaint was sought primarily on two grounds, namely, (a) that the suit filed in the year 1987 challenging the action of the competent authorities under the Act carried out way back in 1963 and 1964 was hopelessly barred by limitation; and (b) that in any case Section 85 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court. 10. Insofar as the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasis that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that only after making inspection of the records in connection with the suit land available in the office of defendant No. 3 (Court Receiver) that they across the correspondence and documents relating to the transactions and that the proceedings before the ALT were collusive, fraudulent and null and void. The appellants/plaintiffs have authority of the Court Receiver to represent them in the tenancy proceedings. 11. The above averments may or may not be true. But if the plaintiffs succeed in establishing the above averments, the issue of limitation cannot be put against the plaintiffs. Generally never had any notice of a particular proceeding before a quasi-judicial 12. came even questioned the a party, who '(2021) 17 see 100 \ 13 r CRP No.759of 2024 authority, is entitled to approach the Court upon gaining knowledge of the proceedings. Limitation cannot be put against such a party. 13. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy And others, (2015) 8 SCC 331 the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11. 14. Again as pointed out by a three member bench of this Court in Chhotanben vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, (2018) 6 SCC 422, the plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold. 26. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court as well as the High Court were clearly in error in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). Hence, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as well as the High Court are set aside and the suit is restored to file. There will be no order as to costs.” Though a petition under Order VII, rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage, since in the present case the plea taken in support of the relief is the same in the previous applications though under a different provision of law, it would be attempt to by-pass the direction of the Supreme Court. In the event of deciding 15. an 14 CRPNo.759 of 2024 the present application, it would directly come in conflict with the order of the Supreme Court by which the order of the High Court was confirmed. Moreover, the suit has come to the fag-end as cross-examination of DW.1 shall be conducted. At this juncture, the purpose and object of Order VII, rule 11 CPC would not be achieved since it is meant for avoiding trial if the suit can be rejected on the grounds mentioned under order VII, rule 11 CPC. But, in the present case, the petitioner initially opted to take the question of limitation preliminary issue to be decided; however he could not succeed in the attempt. Therefore, again by filing the petition under Order VII, rule 11 CPC, the relief cannot be secured in an indirect manner. Thus, though in strict sense the relief in the present petition is different from the relief in the previous application, in substance, the result is the same. As such, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court. There is no reason to interfere with the order. as same 16. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall bemb-order as to costs. Miscellaneous petition^, if any pending, in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. , SD/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The II Additional District Judge, Visakapatnam. 2. One CC to SRI. P RAJASEKHAR Advocate 3. OneCCto SRI. S RAJAN Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Otficer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi 5. THREE CD COPIES [OPUC] Pradesh at TAC HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 ■ i //,/f/ / ORDER CRP.No.759 of 2024 5 21MAt 2025 n ^ . Current Section . a DISMISSING THE CRP /