Date of reserved for orders Date of pronouncement Date of uploading APHC010263812026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1531/2026 BETWEEN: 1. TUMMAN KALYAN AFZAL ALI KHAN, S/o. LATE TUMMAN HYDER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. LANDLORD, R/O. D.NO. 10/950, J.E. STREET 2. TUNNMAN KALYAN KHURSHID REHANA, W/o. TUMMAN KALYAN AFZAL AN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. LANDLORD, R/o. D.No. 10/950, J.E. STREET, KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. 1. J RAJASEKARA REDDY, S/o. LATE SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/o.D.No. 3/38 BANDA STREET, OLD KADAPA, KADAPA CITY. 2. J SWARNALATHA, W/o. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/o.D.No.3/38 STREET, OLD KADAPA, KADAPA CITY. 3. J VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/o. LATE J.SUBBI REDDY, HINDU, AGED 63 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF D.No.20/926, CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, KADAPA CITY. 4. J SUNEETHA, W/o. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/o. COLONY, KADAPA CITY. 5. J VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, S/o. LATE SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/o. D.NO.24/38, BACHA BANDA STREET, OLD KADAPA, KADAPA CITY. 6. J SREELATHA, W/o. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/o.D.No.24/38, BACHA BANDA STREET, OLD KADANA, KADAPA CITY.. Date of reserved for orders : 07.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 12.08.2026 : 14.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1531/2026 TUMMAN KALYAN AFZAL ALI KHAN, S/o. LATE TUMMAN HYDER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. LANDLORD, R/O. D.NO. 10/950, J.E. STREET KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. TUNNMAN KALYAN KHURSHID REHANA, W/o. TUMMAN KALYAN AFZAL AN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. LANDLORD, R/o. D.No. 10/950, J.E. STREET, KADAPA CITY ….PETITIONER(S) AND J RAJASEKARA REDDY, S/o. LATE SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/o.D.No. 3/38-2, BACHA BANDA STREET, OLD KADAPA, KADAPA CITY. J SWARNALATHA, W/o. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/o.D.No.3/38-2, BACHA BANDA OLD KADAPA, KADAPA CITY. J VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/o. LATE J.SUBBI REDDY, HINDU, AGED 63 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF OPERATIVE COLONY, KADAPA CITY. J SUNEETHA, W/o. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/o. D.No.20/926, CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, KADAPA CITY. J VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, S/o. LATE SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/o. D.NO.24/38, BACHA BANDA STREET, OLD KADAPA, KADAPA CITY. J SREELATHA, W/o. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/o.D.No.24/38, BACHA BANDA STREET, OLD KADANA, KADAPA CITY.. ..RESPONDENT(S) [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO TUMMAN KALYAN AFZAL ALI KHAN, S/o. LATE TUMMAN HYDER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. LANDLORD, R/O. KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. TUNNMAN KALYAN KHURSHID REHANA, W/o. TUMMAN KALYAN AFZAL AN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. LANDLORD, R/o. D.No. 10/950, J.E. STREET, KADAPA CITY ….PETITIONER(S) J RAJASEKARA REDDY, S/o. LATE SUBBI REDDY, AGED 2, BACHA J SWARNALATHA, W/o. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 2, BACHA BANDA J VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/o. LATE J.SUBBI REDDY, HINDU, AGED 63 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF OPERATIVE COLONY, KADAPA CITY. J SUNEETHA, W/o. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT OPERATIVE J VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, S/o. LATE SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/o. D.NO.24/38, BACHA ABOUT 57 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/o.D.No.24/38, BACHA BANDA ..RESPONDENT(S) 2 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 by setting aside the order and decreetal order of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa passed in IA.No.1053/2025 in OS.No.52/2025 dated 20.03.20264 and pass such further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 20.03.2026 in I.A. No.1053 of 2025 in O.S. No.52 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, under, Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein who are the plaintiffs filed suit to direct the respondents/defendants to receive the principal loan amount of Rs.4.65 crores along with interest payable @ 12% and re- convey the property as per the respective agreements of re- conveyance, dated 13.09.2019, 03.06.2020, 30.11.2020, 07.01.2021 and 20.07.2021, in the event of failure to do so by the defendants, the Court may be pleased to execute a registered sale deed on behalf of the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property. 2. In the said suit, the respondents/defendants filed I.A. No.1053 of 2025 interalia seeking for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a)(d) of CPC contending that the suit is filed for re-conveyance and the suit is improperly valued, the Court fee that paid is not sufficient and the suit is barred by limitation and the plaint discloses no cause of action. 3. Learned Trial Court refused to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation and on the ground of lack of cause of action observing these issues must be determined during the course of trial. However, the 4 Court directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay the Court fee on the value of the re-conveyance agreements with interest within two months. 4. The said order dated 20.03.2020 is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition, stating that the Court can reject the plaint only when there is no cause of action. The Court fee can be paid during the course of trial at any time. The Court cannot direct to pay the deficient court fee in respect of the plaint that can be made during the trial and further stated that the application is filed not under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) (c) of CPC and the said application is filed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) (d). Under Rule 11(a) (d) a plaint can be rejected only when no cause of action, the trial Court Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order of the learned trial Court Judge and argued that under Order 7, Rule 11(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 and under clause (c) the Court can reject the plaint. Though, the petition is filed under Rule 11(a)(b) of Order VII, the pleading in the affidavit is that to direct the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay deficiency of Court fees, mere quoting of wrong provision, is not a ground to dismiss the application. 5 6. In this regard, in the case of J. Kumaradasan Nair and another v. IRIC Sohan and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is well settled principle of law that mentioning of wrong provision or non mentioning of any provision of law by itself, not sufficient to take away the jurisdiction of a Court if it is otherwise vested in it in law. 7. As seen from the assertion in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the pleading is, for direction to the plaintiff to pay deficit court fees as it improperly valued. As held by the Apex in the above referred judgment, quoting wrong provision is no ground to dismiss the application. Therefore, the said contention of counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs is untenable. The respondents/defendants have filed the application assessing the suit value and prayed to direct that the petitioners/plaintiff to pay the deficit court fees, failing to do so, reject plaint. This contention of the respondents/defendants that the suit was not valued properly has not denied in the counter filed to the I.A. 1053 of 2025. 8. Point for consideration is that the order of the trial Court judge in directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay the court fees is sustainable under law or not. To answer the issue certain provisions are hereby extracted for the benefit. 6 9. Section of 5 of A.P. Court fee and suit valuation Act speaks that to collect proper fee on documents. “When a document on which the whole or any part of the fee payable under this Act has not been paid is produced or received in any Court or public office, the Court or the head of the office may, at any time, direct the person by whom such fee is payable to pay the fee or part thereof, as the case may be, within such time as may be fixed; and upon such payment, the document shall be dealt with as if the full fee had been paid in the first instance.” 10. Section 149 of CPC: Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to Court-fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such Court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance. 11. 11. 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; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on 7 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) xxxxxx (f) xxxxxx [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper 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 form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper , 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.] 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham and another , the facts there in the said case are that : the plaintiff therein filed suit for recovery of money paying one rupee, the plaintiff therein has filed an application under Section 149 CPC for extension of time for the payment of the deficient of Court fee and also filed an application under Section 148 of CPC for further extension and the Court has extended the time for payment of the court fee. Later, the defendants has entered the appearance moved an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) urging for the first time that the suit presented on 5th October 1998 was barred by limitation as the extension of time granted by the trial court under Section 149 read with 8 Section 151 of the Code and condonation of delay in re-filing was passed without issuing notice to them. However the apex court rejected the contention of the defendant in the suit by referring the judgment of the apex court in K.C. Sharia Vs Govt. of Kerala & another reported in [(2006) 2 SCC 285], it was held: "20. The appellant next attempted to press into service Section 149 CPC to contend that he ought to have been given an opportunity to pay the deficit court fee on the total amount due for the work done. Section 149 provides that where the whole or any part of court fee prescribed for any document has not been paid, the court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part as the case may be, of such court fee, and upon such payment, the document in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such court fee had been paid in the first instance. Section 4 of the Court Fees Act bars the court from receiving the plaint if it does not bear the proper court fee. Section 149 acts as an exception to the said bar, and enables the court to permit the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee at a stage subsequent to the filing of the suit and provides that such payment, if permitted by the court, shall have the same effect as if it had been paid in the first instance. Interpreting Section 149, this Court in Mannan Lal Vs Mst. Chhotaka Bibi (Dead) by LRs. B. Sharda Shankar & Ors. [ (1970) 1 SCC 769], held Section 149 CPC mitigates the rigour of Section 4 of the CF Act, and the courts should harmonise the provisions of the CF Act and CPC by reading Section 149 as a proviso to Section 4 of the CF Act, and 9 allowing the deficit to be made good within the period to be fixed by it. The apex court that if the deficit is made good, no objection could be raised on the ground of bar of limitation, as Section 149 specifically provides that the document is to have validity with retrospective effect." 13. Learned counsel for the respondents defendants also relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in M/s. Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani & ors, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that: “A plain and conjoint reading of clauses (b) and (c) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code makes it abundantly clear that the power to reject a plaint on the grounds enumerated therein, is not to be exercised in the first instance, without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff. The statutory scheme contemplates a two-step process. Firstly, the Court must form the opinion that the relief claimed is undervalued or that the Court fee paid is insufficient. Secondly, upon such determination, the Court is obligated to require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and/or supply the requisite court fee within a time to be fixed by it. It is only upon failure of the plaintiff to comply with such direction within the stipulated time, that the consequences of rejection of the plaint can ensure. Thus, the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(b) or (c) is not automatic upon a finding of undervaluation or deficit court fee; rather, it is conditional upon non-compliance with the opportunity so granted by the Court. 10 14. Though the application is filed under Order VII rule (a) (d) of the CPC the affidavit contents 15. It is settled law that wrong quoting of provision of law is not an impediment in granting the relief. The courts are required to see the pleadings and relief claimed by the parties. The pleading is to direct the plaintiffs to makeup for the deficient of court fee. It is not the case of the petitioners/plaintiff that the respondents have wrongly calculated the court fee. Mere quoting of the wrong provisions the relief cannot be denied if otherwise eligible. 16. In the present case, the Trial Court did not reject the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC; rather, it directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay the deficit court fees within two months, along with interest. Upon reviewing the aforementioned provisions in conjunction with Supreme Court judgments, it is clear that under Order 7 Rule 11(b), the court is empowered to direct a plaintiff to rectify an undervalued plaint by paying the deficit court fee within a specified timeframe, or alternatively, to return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(c) for no payment of the deficit court fees. In the event of the plaintiff fail to correct the valuation or provide the requisite stamp duty, the court may extend the time for compliance, provided it records its reasons as per the proviso to Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also categorically held at the first instance the court can only direct 11 the petitioners/plaintiffs to make deficient court value. As argued by the counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, it cannot be gain said that the ingredients of Order VII rule 11 of CPC can be applied at the initial stage in a given case and not after the suit is tried. When it is found the court fee that was paid is deficient, the court can direct the plaintiff to pay deficient court fee in the event if fails to do so the Court can reject the plaint if the plaintiff fails to make up for the deficit of court fees as directed. 17. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to file an appropriate application before the trial Court for extension of time for payment of deficient court fee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon filing such an application, the trial Court is directed to pass an appropriate order regarding the request for extension of time for payment of deficit court fee. In the event the plaintiff fails to pay the court fees the trial court is directed to pass appropriate order for rejection of plaint. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 12.08.2026 Harin 12 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO C.P.No. 1531 OF 2026 Date: 12-08-2026 Harin