The High Court · 2025

...AppellanURespondent no.1/plaintiff 1 2 The lnduslnd Bank Chambers, 1-10-72' Manager, _Begumpet Branch, 3d aes-umqei, Hy;;;;'6J _,ut,fiE! ffril fififl:El ...Respondent no. 1/petitiohe;b"i;";;;iXi;? [M/s. Bharat Engineerino ;.,,,l.Jr:*"*ai?ffi i3:T3fl ri"dlg",1f#ir,?,itl3,tli,_#:Js,.,:,; 3 Sri. . Shaganti Lingah, S/o trflirjtfl lt;$ihl".*Tfl l,:#;itl$l"i"-**"11Jh*"l?# 4 Smt_ Shaganti Vijaylakshm lfifli*'gfr #*i!flt,r,.ilirdnffiT3ri,:?:i*.;ff pJf#j,f ",; Biil"iyBxr?1:JJ,,'5;:?:,"{".U,;""lrr#1,=":3ff

5. Ms. Shaganti Shivani. D/o Sri.-Shaganti Lingah, aged about 2.1 years. Occ T,ff;,y#fi ii;,";: ;;,t'6?:a#,lil,t:ft x,,,iii;.li:l'd?,go";:".il.,a%1y#;t%:l#J,.:!:; Cl Sri. Rajesh Kumar Aoarwa 7 o Yllrl Kumar Agarw_at, S/o... Sri..Rajesh Kumar Agarwat, rrged about 35 y€ars, Occ Business. R/o. H.No.6_.1_.1 OttZO, iaiaiar)onrgrr. Secunderabad The Sub-Reqtstrar Vijayawada Fwv. 508252 1, Hyderabad - Distrr:t Relangana Sub-Registrar Office. Lakkaram, Nalgonda Chotuppal Choutuppal, 9 The sub-Reqist'ar. outhburapur sub-Registrar office, .l.r Fror r, suraram ,X, Road. 1-303/1. {luraram Vi!_+ ffi'offi.brjiai,:r (M), Suraram, Medchat_ I\4alkajgiri District Telangana SO'OOSS-' qvu ruurroPu Vizianagaram -D " ilX?"i:?,ffifl:i;?.iJ[",.1"1ar sub-Resistrar orrice' IvrRo coml'rex, Medchar. 1 1. The Sub-Reqistrar. Bh.ogapuram Sub_Registrar Office. Bhogapuram, 12 The Sub Reqistra,.. Gairrwaka. sub-Registrar office, 35, Venkateswara coronv '13.The Sub-Reoistrar Kothayalasa Sub_Registrar Office, Kothavalasa, Rd, Sheeta rrragar. vis6khapatnam, nntiia* p;"j;h s3oo 12 is trict AndhE pEJ6sr, ssizi 0""'""' V izi an aga r am b i st rici An d h ra pia?es n 5"3;1 b:",' " " " (Respondents/Defendants 6 to 13 are not necessary parties to this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal) lA NO: 1 oF 2024 ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants 1 to 4, 6 to 13 Petition under section .i 51 .cpc praying that in the circumst,nces stated rn the affidavit fired in s;upp-ort-ot ttre peiitio'n, ir'"'Hign court may be: preased to suspend the order dated 15-10-2oz+ passeJ'in r-q rrro a+s of 2024 in o.s.No.91 or 2024 bv the Learned , Addr. DistriJt tG;t"i;;; Jrdse, Medchar-rvlarkajgiri at Medchal pending the disposal of the main ar.A. '" ' Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T. Surya Satish Counset for the Respondent No.1: Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy The Court delivered the foilowing: JUDGMENT L l ) ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSfICE P.SREE SUDHA CTVIL MISCELLIIIIElOUS APPEAL No.545 of 2o24 JUDGMENT: Hon'ble Smt. Justice p.St"e Sudha) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 15. 10.2O24 in I.A.No.845 of 2024 in O.S.No.91 of 2024 passed by the learned Il-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Medchal.

2. Respondent No.t herein has filed a petition against the appellant herein and other respondents before the triar Court uide I.A-No.845 of 2024 in O.S.No.91 of 2024, under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC, for rejection of plaint. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, returned the plaint to the appellant to present the same beforb the appropriate Court as regular suit under correct provision of law with necessary changes in the plaint. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant herein mainly contended that though the respondent No. 1 filed the petition before the trial Court under Order 7 rule 1 1 , it was decided under Order 7 rule lO, on the ground that summary suit is not i j 2 maintainable . It is a settied law that if a summary suit is not maintainable, the trial Court has to convert the sa me into ordinary suir. by directing the defendants to hle the written . statement an ci not to return the plaint to be resubmitt :d. if at all, the petition under Order 7 rule 11 is not maintair rable, it has to be rejec:ted, but direction cannot be given under Order 7 trle 1O as no relief was sought for against the responde,nt No.1 herein. The tr-ial Court erred in deciding the issue wherher the case of the appellant fatls within the ambit of Order 37 of C.p.C even before eL leave to defend petition was lllecl by the respondents/ rl,:fendants. Therefore, requested the Cour- to set aside the Ordcr passed by the trial Court.

4. In fact, r).S.No.9l of 2024 was hled under Order 37 of C.P.C, as a sllmmary suit with relevant documents. A special procedure was prescribed under Order of C.p.C in rlealing with the disposal of the summary suit, but during the pendency '37 of the proceedjngs, a petition was hled for rejection of plaint. In the counter fileC by the appellant herein in I.A.No.845 af 2024 in O.S.No.91 <l 2024, it is stared that respondent No.t herein has filed the petition in a routine manner to drag t:,n the summary procr:.dings without any basis. The triar court i-rstead of rejecting or allor."'ing the petition rrled under order 7 rrrre 1 1 l\ /, , of c'P'c, converted it into the petition under order 7 rule r0 of C.P.C and also observed that summary procedure under Order 37 of C.P.C is not applicable to the present case and it has to be brought as regular suit and returned the plaint to the appellant..

5. The specific contention of the appellant herein is that as he filed the summar5r suit, leave to defend application is to be filed by the respondent No. 1 and they have to file written statement before converting the same into ordinary suit. The procedure contemplated under order 37 of c.p.c is not folrowed by the trial Court. Therefore, the Order of the trial Court is patently erroneious and is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaleous Appeal is allowed setting aside the Order of the triai Court passed in I.A.No.845 of 2024 in O.S.No.91 of 2024, dated tS.tO.2O24. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous closed- petitions pending, if any, shall stand \ //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR To, 1 Th ECTION OFFICER e ll Additional District and sessions Judge, Medchar-Markajgiri District I\rledchal. 7 9". 99 to 9 9n" CC to Sri G. Katyan Chakravarthy, Ad'vocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies Surya Satish, Advocate IOPUC] ^Sli_T kam/DL HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 I ! I ! JUDGMENT GMA.No.545 of 2024 1 HE SLr f e a e u 1 0 APn Z[25 q v ( ) r..\-i:_:= t:'l ALLOWING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Il0