In Raptakos Brett Co. Ltd v. Ganesh Propertyr and Mayar

...PETITIONERYPETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND P.Ramesh Kumar, S/o H.No.104/105, Lakshmi Railway Station, Hyderabad - 500 019 Late Satyanarayana aged about 36 years Fl/o Vihar, Phase-ll, Nallagandla Near Lingampally ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 61 ol 2017 pending on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V RAMU Counsel for the Respondent: ----- The Court made the following: ORDER The Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao Civil Revision Petition No.2336 of 2O2l' Order: This Civil Revision Petition is filed invoking the provisions under Article 2')'7 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order and decrr:e dated 28.L1.2O24 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in I.A.No.284 of 2024 in O.S.No.61 of 2017.

2. Heard Mr'y'.Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. This Civit Revision Petition is being disposed of at the admission stagc. Hence, notice in respect of respondent is dispensed with. 4 . Learned ,:ounsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.6l ot 2077 for recovery of Rs.1,O4,22 ,87O /- against the petitioner/defendant before the Cortrt below on O7.l2.2Oll. In the said suit, the plaintiff has not specifically mentioned the cause of action and the suit filed by tht: respondent is barred by limitation. The petitioner Iiled I.A.No.28zl of 2024 invoking the provisions under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation as vrell as cause of action. The Court trelow, vr.ithout \ 2 properly appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner and averments made in the application, erroneously dismissed the said - I.A.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the respondent f-rled suit in O.S. No.6l of 2017 against the petitioner for recovery of al amount of Rs.l,O4,22,87 0/- along with interest, on 07.12.2011, and the petitioner lrled written statement on 16.07.2017 , alter lapse of more than three years. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 284 of 2024, in the month of December, 2023, to reject the plaint. In the said I.A., the petitioner averred as follows: "l humbly beg to submit that the plain reading of plaint clearly discloses, it was not pleaded in the plaint how the suit was within period of limitation. Apparently the plaint discloses, the suit was not within the period of limitation. The suit is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute a suit within tJ:e jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court- So that I am advised to file this application to reject the plaint. There are no willful latches on my part. Hence I pray the Honble Court may be pleased to reject the plaint as barred by limitation and pass such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems ht to order in the circumstances of the case in the interest ofjustice." I I 3

6. The record further reveals that the plaintiff in para No.4 of the plaint specihcally averred the cause of action for filing the suit. In para No.6 of the plaint, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the suit is within the period of limitation. It is very much relevant to mention that the limitation aspect is a mixed question of fact and law and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial.

7. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Propertyr and Mayar (H.K.f Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that though in an application under Order VII Rule I I ol C.P.(1., the Court has to look into the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone. The Court canr)ot at that stage look into the written statement or the documents tled along with the written statement. \

8. In Mustigulla @ Namaswamy Hemanth Kumar v, Abhaya Infrastructure Rrt. Ltd. And otherss, the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held ttrat rejection of plaint on the ground of res judicata, cause of action, under valuation, limitation have to tre decided on trial but tht: same cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint, I (1998) 7 SCC 18. , (2006) 3 SCC tOO 3 2016 (6) ALD s96 (DB) ::4:: especially when the param€ters of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. are e not satisfied.

9. In the case on hand, the petitioner without mentioning any specihc reasons in the application simply pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action. The Court below has rightly dismissed the I.A.No.284 of 2O24. Hence, ttris Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. To, SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY// OFFICER S I

1. The lV Additional District Judge at Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 2. One CC to SRl. V RAMU Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies & MKN/PSL I I --.....-......: HIGH COURT DATED:18107|,2025 1n oti 295 D6 ::-C.i.1;|fi. ORDER CRP.No.2336 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 1O \o