High Court · 2025

ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CI\/II. REVISION PETITIO N No.150I OF 2025 The pettlor ter - plaintiff filed a suit in S.R. No9 ol' 2O25 on

06.01 .2025 befo e the learned vl Additional District Judge, lSathupally, seeking to direcl lhe respondents - defendants to pay conrpr::nsation of Rs.1,00,00.000/- (Rupees one crore only) with an interes;t <t'l 24o/o per annum to the pe.itioner from the date of suit till the date of reirlization.

2. lnter atia in the suit, it was pleaded by the petitioner that he has succeeded kl tl r: suit schedule property - Mango Garden (for short 'property') frrn his parents. The property was protecled by the standard irorr gates. There were two (2) iron gates fixed by the petitioner. Tr: tccused persons by name Mr. Gaddam Narsimha S/o' Gaddam Velilrir @ Yadadri and others entered in to the prroperty of the petitioner by r_.r toving iron gates and stolen them on the instigation of some unknotv ''t )ersons.

2.1 ',I he petitioner has made a complaint to the SHO' Sathupally Rura Police Station, stating that the accused p€rrsons have attacked hin cr '14.08.2019, and he also categorically expressed the law position il,; I rer the lndian Penal Code, 1 860 (lPC) abou r the liability of accused cer;ons. However, the Police did not take any action. .l 2 Taking undue advantage of the same, the accused persons again committed offences by removing gates, as such, the petitioner has Iodged another complaint on 10.03.2022, by referring to earlier complaints before sHo, sathupaily Rurar porice station, and arso forwarded the same to the concerned Commissioner of police and Circle Inspector. The Sathupally Rural police Station has simply registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2O2Z against four (4) accused persons only. Hence, the petitioner has addressed retters to respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 - the Station House Officer (SHO), sathupally Police Station, on 06.07.2022 for taking action against the accused and for impleading Mr. lnampudi George and his four (4) sons in the above crime, but porice neither took any action against the accused nor impleaded the above persons.

2.2 On 07.10.2023, the petitioner has given complaint to SHO, sathupally Rurar Porice station, expraining about the additionar complaint in Crime No.95 of 2022 rcgarding offence commifted by other accused persons and for recovering the storen property of the petitioner. On 19.10.2023, petitioner issued notice to the Commissioner of Police, Sathupally, for making enquiry about Crime No.95 of 2022 against accused persons and for summoning the officiar sub-ordinates. several reminders were also given by the petitioner to the Police. On 03.04.2024, petitioner has addressed a letter to the , / ,,..- i-ltr.* t I t I , I i I I I I I I i 3 concerned corni rissioner of Police for taking action against the Police sub-ordinates, b tl no action was taken

2.3 Thr petitioner has also sent letters and rerninders to respondent l lo - defendant No.1 to look into the seriousness of the theft case. But ro action was initiated. ln Form No.52 intentionally the description cf petitioner - plaintiff was shown as Mr. Gaddam Sai Krishna Wo, '/acladri, instead of son of Mr. Yadadri. lt wat; deliberate act on the p;rr1 :f the then Circle lnspector (Cl) of Polic'e, Mr' Mohan Babu, to hunri ia e the petitioner. Respondents deserve purishment as they have rtot taken any action against the then Cl of Police, Mr. Mohan Babr The CI of Police has intentionally damagt:d the case of the petition-'r ror some personal benefits and filed charge sheet for the offences pt nlshable under Sections 294(b), 324, li}tl read with Section 34 of lF (l against 41 and ,46, by removing the nanes of A2 to A5. The del,:t :rn of names of accused is intentional. l)olice have wrongly refe'rer the case as Crime No.382 of 2021 instead of Crime No.95 of 202:1'. z nd misguided the Court, and Form - 62 was issued by the learned lriirgistrate. By letter dated 01.02.2024' lh':> petitioner requested resp()ndent No.3 - defendant No.3 to take strirgent action against the 1l^e r SHO, Cl and the Assistant Commissicne,r of Police, Sathupally. lo\ /ever, no action was taken. a l i i 4

3. Heard Mr. P. B. Vijaya (urn2r, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Ms. A.V.S. Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff, and perused the material available on record.

4. As the impugned order was passed even before the suit was numbered, notice to the respondents is not required and accordingly the same is dispensed with.

5. The trial Court rejected the plaint by recording the following reasons "Perused the record. As per the contents of un- registered plaint, it is noticed that when several times thefts occurred in the mango garden of the plaintiff, he made several complaints and got sent lefters to the S.H.O P.S. Sathupally/defendant No.2, Assistant commissioner of police, Sathupally/ defendant No.3, who in{urn simply registered cases under irrelevant sections and dragged on the matter without filing charge sheets and at last filed charge sheet by deleting the main accused and in the form No.52, abusive language was used against the plaintiff. Similarly, even after making several complaints and representations to the then Superintendent of police, Khammam/ defendant No.1, he also failed to enquire into the matter and take any action against his subordinates, due to which subsequent thefts occurred in his property and due to non-action of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 within time, the plaintiff suffered lot r' 5 of phys,cal iand mental agony and therefore the defendant Nos.1 to I are liable to pay damages to a tune o{ Rs 1 crore, sc t' rat the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for dar lages against the official defendant Nos''l t<r 3' By t[tr: rforesaid averments of plaint' it is made r;rystal clear ttrat, "or the acts done by the Defendant Nos l to 3 while dir;c'arging their official duties, the plaintiff s;airl to be sustirir r-'d heavy loss and damage and therefore the defendanl Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay damages to a lune of Rs.1 :r rre to him. It is er s ettled law that, the Government servants/police officials a r: not made as responsible for the acts doni: by them ,ruhi r: discharging their official duties in good taith and a r;u 1 for payment of damages personally by lluch public sie'rants in a civil court is not maintainable vthen there i; an alternative remedy for claiming damages agains;t tl re state under Vlcarious Liability in the tlon'ble High Ortu 11 is available."

6. Order \/ll Rule 11 C.P.C reads as under: "The plairrt rall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) when: i rjoes not disclose a cause of action; (d) whe re lhe suit appears from the statement in the plair t to be barre 1 by anY law: T, 6

7. The reasons of the trial Court for rejecting the plaint are erroneous and unsustainable. As pointed out by the learned senior Counsel, the trial Court did not refer to any provision of law which says that the Government servants-police officials cannot be made responsible for the acts done by them while discharging their official duties. whether the public servants or officiars acted in good faith or not is a question of fact and the same has to be decided in a suit by framing appropriate issue. So far as vicarious liability is concerned, it is for the petitioner to decide whether to make the State-employer as a party or not. lt is too premature for the trial Court to say that the Government officials/Police have acted in good faith and that they are not personally liable to pay damages and only State is liable. ln any case on the principle of vicarious liability a plaint cannot be rejected unless supported by any statutory provision or judicial precedent in that regard. Moreover, the petitioner being,dominus litus' is the best person to choose and decide which remedy is the appropriate. A plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternate remedy in the High Court. There is no judicial precedent cited by the trial Cou( to hold that claim of damages against police officials can be made only before the High Court in writ jurisdiction and not before Civil Court. A suit for damages is a common law remedy which can be filed when legal inlrV is caused to the plaintiff by the t,._, '' *19&l r t;. ,/. 7 defendants. lt tna' be due to breach of contract or due to narction or abuse of power by :he Government officials etc' S.Asseerl.omtheavermentsintheplaint,grievanci}ofthe petitioner - plairr':ifl is that the respondent police in derogatior of their official duties dic r ot take any action against the accused-culprits who damaged mango 1'ees along with crop in the property and non-action of the responderrtr r'defendants has caused lot of physical ;ln'l mental agonY to the Pet tilner.

9. lt is surllr:;ing to note that further reason for rejerli<in of the plaint is that the"e is no cause of action to file the suit ln Om Prakash srivastava v. l;nion of lndial, the Hon',ble Supreme cqurt dealing with the cause c'f rction has held as under:

9. 13y r:ause of action" it is meant every fact whir;h' if travert;t:d it would be necessary for the plaintiff tc) prove in ordet t ) support his right to a judgment of the Cou( ln other vt'o rJs, a bundle of facts, which it is necess;aly for the pli:in1 ff to prove in order to succeed in the su t' 'iSee Bloctn, D'tkor Lid. v. Subhash Himatlat Desa? ) 10 ln a generic and wide sense (as in Section l'10 of the Civil rrocedure Code, 1908) "cause of action" means every fa< t, which it is necessary to establish to supprort a ' lzoooy o scr: zo r '1t99+;6 sc,: 3z I I i I I I I I I I I I a t I 8 right to obtain a judgment. (See Sadanan dan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumaf .) 1 1. lt is settled law that "cause of action,, consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. ln other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. lt must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. [See Soufh Easf Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd 4l

14. The expression "cause of action', is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entifles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person (see Black's Law Dictionary). ln Sfroud,s Judiciat Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. ln Words and phrases (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase .cause action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on I l toea; o scc sr + ' 1r leey 3 scc ++: 1998 SCC (CrrI l47l I i j I I l I l 9 his behalf (See Navinch andra N' Maiithia v' Stitte of Maharash;'a5.) 15.|n tlal ;bury's Laws of England (4th Edn') it has b-"en stated irr; follows '' 'O;ru;e of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation, the existence of which enttel one person to obtain from the court a rented i against another person' The phrase has 6s6.'11 t r:ld from earliest time to include every fact wh c h s material to be proved to entitle the plairrti f to succeed, and every fact which a der'€ n( ant would have a right to traverse' 'Cause of e cl on' has also been taken to mean that a partic r ar act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint' or the subie )'i-matter of grievance founding the action' nct m : rely the technical cause of action'"

10. ln corr'irLlance of the pleadings set out in paragr;rph Nos l to 16, the petitionet - plaintiff in the "cause of action" paragrelpt has spelt out reasons oo rstituting cause of action Thus' impugred order holdingthattlr,:rlisnocauseofactioniscontrarytotheplei:rdingsand is unsustainable No doubt the suit filed by the petitionerr s unusual' However, plairt cannot be rejected at the threshold unler;s there is strong case 'c, l old that plaint does not disclose cause of action and ' lzooo; r s(lc 610 :looI scc (cri)2ls 10 that it is barred by law. With the changing contours of administration, public awareness and empowerment, inefficiency at various levels of administration and absence of effective grievance redressal mechanism, there cannot be any setfled raw that can be raid down for all times to come. Law cannot be static; it changes from time to time depending upon the changes in the society and modern thinking. The court while entertaining a suit cannot have pre-set notion that suit is not maintainable. The Courts have to march in tune with the changing times and cannot have conseryative approach as in the instant case. 1 1. As pointed out above, the trial Court has not mentioned any provision of law in the impugned order as to how the instant suit is barred. So far as, cause of action is concerned, such point normally has to be decided after appearance of respondents _ defendants. The impugned order is illegal and unsustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed sefting aside the impugned order dated 21.01 .202s. The trial court is directed to register the suit and issue summons to the respondents-defendants. The defendants are at liberty to avair all remedies avairable under cpc { ( .; ! ,I I j ]} , I I II I ;' l. 11 including rerr,e,d, under Order Vll Rule 11 of CPC for rt,jection of plaint, if they ilre so advised. There shall be no order as tc, costs As a seque I thereto, miscellaneous applications, if anr,,, pending in this civil revir;i< n petition stand closed. ; \ SD/- AHMED hBDULLAH K ASSIST ANTREGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fa r C opy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice B'VIJAYSEI'I R'EDDY Lordships kind perusal) - -iFi,ini. To,

1. The \/l Adr itional District Judge at Sathupally' Khammarrr ')istrict' 2. 11 LR OtrP es i. fnu tlna"r. liecretary, Union of lndia tr/linistry of law' 'Justicr: and Company 4 The Serlr:t y AdVoCateS Associatlon (TG) Library, Hi3h Cctrrt }uildings Hyderabad ;. cjii"';ij t. ;.in v.s.t-,xmi, Advocate (oPUC) 6. Two C[) (]. pies Ks/PSL Affairs, I'le n' Delhi. I ; +a-: q f o o E siT,{r6 t\1 1 0 lrjlr 2B?5 z o .[Q t D6gpr41 f1 ri,f :;; =2 I HIGH COURT DATED:2510,il2025 ORDER CRP.No.1509 of 2025 /lt I 1 /o / 5 Allowing the C.R.P Without cosits.