Plaint is returned.-How the suit for the entire schedule of property Ac.5-30 guntas is maintainable, when the Agreement of Sale is for Ac.2-00 guntas and another receipt is for Ac.2-00 guntas. = the agreement of sale is executed to an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.6, and clause no.4 in the agreement of is pertaining to remaining portion of his land i.e. 3.30 gts in Sy.No.4 and the 1st party assures second party after completion of sale transaction under agreement of sale dt.17/2/2015 only the future transaction takes place. Therefore suit is not maintainable to the entire extent of Ac.5.20 gts and it is maintainable to extent of Ac.2.00 only in Sy.No.6 only. Hence counsel is directed to restricted his prayer to the extent of two acres only. Aggrieved by the direction to restrict his suit prayer as a condition precedent for entertainment of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court.= In the aforestated scheme, there is no power vesting in the trial Court at the time of registration of the suit to venture into the merits of the matter or possible disputed issues. In the present case, the objection raised by the office of the trial Court, which was thereafter sustained by the trial Court, is that the suit prayer relates to a larger extent than can be claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff as per the suit agreement. This is not an issue which could have been gone into by the trial Court at the time of registration of the plaint. It is for the petitioner-plaintiff to demonstrate before the trial Court during the suit proceedings as to how he is entitled to such relief. When he valued the property in question fully and properly and paid requisite Court fee thereon, the trial Court had no power to determine as to the extent of relief that could be claimed by him at the very threshold and require him to amend his suit prayer accordingly. It may be noticed that it is not the case of the trial Court that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action whereby it could have rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In fact, it did not even do so. It merely returned the plaint requiring the petitioner-plaintiff to restrict his prayer to a lesser extent. The order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the trial Court to this effect is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court is directed to examine the plaint presented by the plaintiff only in the context of the parameters prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Civil Rules of Practice and if it is found to be in order, register the same as per Rule 23 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2523 OF 2018
25-04-2018
Mir Firasath Ali Khan .. Petitioner
Sayeeduddin Zafar.. Respondent
Counsel for petitioner: Sri D. Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for respondent: --
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? CASES REFERRED:
--
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2523 OF 2018
O R D E R
The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the plaintiff in
OS SR No.887 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Vikarabad. The said suit was filed with
the following prayer:
i) Directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed
in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule
property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.3-30 guntas in Sy.No.4
and land admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.6 total
admeasuring Ac.5-30 guntas situated at one Compact at
Shaipur Village under the Limits of Tandur Municipality,
Tandur Mandal, R.R.District (presently Vikarabad District),
which is more fully described in the plaint schedule.
ii) And in the event the defendant failed to execute and register
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
schedule property, this Honble Court may be pleased to
execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule
property.
iii) To award the costs of the suit, and
iv) To any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiffs entitled
to may also be awarded in the circumstances of the case
and interest of justice.
The office of the trial Court raised an objection on 04.04.2018,
which reads as under:
C.F.R.No. of 2018 dated 4-4-2018
This is a suit file under section 26 order 7 rule 1 and 2 C.P.C,
suit for specific performance in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.4,
extent Ac.3-30, in survey number 6 extent Ac.2-00 situated at
Saipur village of Tandur Mandal as per the agreement of sale dated
17-2-2015
The agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 is executed only for
an extent of Ac.2-00 in survey number 6 situated at Shaipur village,
but the plaintiff praying to this Court for directions to the
defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
to an extent of Ac.5-30 guntas in Sy.No.4 and 6.
How the suit is maintainable for claiming Ac.5-30 guntas
against the agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 filed in this suit.
Hence the Plaint is returned.
SFO
Returned. Time (7) days.
Thereupon, the petitioner-plaintiff re-submitted the suit stating as
follows:
Objections complied herewith. Hence resubmitted.
4-4-2018
The suit is filed for specific performance as per the
agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 and as per clause No.4 of
agreement of sale he agreed to sale his other property covered
with Memorandum of Conformation of Oral Hiba dated February
2015 and executed on 18/04/2015 for remaining land of the
defendant.
Hence the suit is maintainable as per the agreement and
receipt.
Hence resubmitting.
Sd/-
04/04/2018
The office however opined that the objections required to be heard
on two points:
(1) The point of limitation
(2) How the suit for the entire schedule of property Ac.5-30 guntas
is maintainable, when the Agreement of Sale is for Ac.2-00 guntas
and another receipt is for Ac.2-00 guntas.
The matter was accordingly directed to be posted for hearing on
the Bench and, by order dated 12.04.2018, the trial Court returned the
suit stating as under:
Heard the counsel for plff, the agreement of sale is executed to an
extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.6, and clause no.4 in the agreement of
is pertaining to remaining portion of his land i.e. 3.30 gts in
Sy.No.4 and the 1st party assures second party after completion of
sale transaction under agreement of sale dt.17/2/2015 only the
future transaction takes place. Therefore suit is not maintainable to
the entire extent of Ac.5.20 gts and it is maintainable to extent of
Ac.2.00 only in Sy.No.6 only. Hence counsel is directed to restricted
his prayer to the extent of two acres only.
Aggrieved by the direction to restrict his suit prayer as a condition
precedent for entertainment of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff is before
this Court.
Section 26 CPC deals with institution of suits and states that every
suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint and that, in every
plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit. Order 7 CPC deals with the plaint.
Order 7 Rule 1 details the particulars to be contained in the plaint. Order 7
Rule 7 requires the relief sought to be specifically stated in the plaint.
Order 7 Rule 10 CPC deals with the return of the plaint at any stage if it
has been presented before the wrong Court. Order 7 Rule 11 details the
situations where the plaint can be rejected by the trial Court. This Court,
in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section
126 CPC, framed the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular
Orders 1980 (hereinafter, The Civil Rules of Practice). Chapter II of the
Civil Rules of Practice deals with the Form of Proceedings. Rule 8 therein
deals with the form of the plaint etc. Rule 9 speaks of the cause title of
the plaint etc. Rule 10 deals with the names etc. of the parties. Rule 11
deals with address for service. Rule 12 deals with suits by or against
numerous parties. Rule 14 deals with proceedings in respect of immovable
property and reads as under:
Proceedings in respect of immovable property:-
Every plaint, original petition and memorandum of appeal, in
which relief is sought with respect to immovable property, shall
state, as part of the description thereof the registration district,
sub-district, the name of the village, Municipality or Corporation in
which the property is situate, the survey number of the house
number, if any, the market value of the property and the value for
purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction as computed according to the
provisions of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956
and in cases where the court-fee payable on the rental value, the
annual rental value of the property for which it is let, and there
shall be annexed thereto a statement duly filled in and signed by
the party of the particulars mentioned in Form No.8. In the
absence of the said particulars, the proceedings may be received
but shall not be admitted or filed until the provisions of this rule
have been complied with.
Rule 16 deals with the list of documents to be filed along with the
plaint. Rule 20 deals with the presentation of proceedings and reads as
under:
20. Presentation of Proceedings:-
(1) All plaints, written statements, applications, and other
proceedings and documents may be presented to or filed in court
by delivering the same by the party in person or by his recognised
agent or by his Advocate or by a duly registered clerk of the
Advocate to the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court or such other
officers as may be designated for the purpose by the Judge before
4.00 p.m. on any working day. Provided that in case where the
limitation expires on the same day they may be received by a
Judge even after 4.00 P.M.
(2) The Officer to whom such documents were presented
shall at once endorse on the documents the date of presentation,
the value of the stamp fixed, and if the proceedings, are thereby
instituted, shall insert the serial number.
(3) In case of paper bearing court fee stamps, he shall, if
required issue a receipt in form No.17 in Appendix III-L to these
rules.
(4) Every plaint or proceeding presented to or filed in court
shall be accompanied by as many copies on plain paper of the
plaint or proceeding and the document referred to in Rule 16, as
there are defendants or respondents unless the court otherwise
dispenses with such copies of the documents by reason of their
length or for any other sufficient reason.
Rule 23 states that where, upon examination, the plaint is found to
be in order, it shall be entered in the register of suits, and the Judge shall
pass orders as to the issue of summons or otherwise.
In the aforestated scheme, there is no power vesting in the trial
Court at the time of registration of the suit to venture into the merits of
the matter or possible disputed issues. In the present case, the objection
raised by the office of the trial Court, which was thereafter sustained by
the trial Court, is that the suit prayer relates to a larger extent than can be
claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff as per the suit agreement. This is not an
issue which could have been gone into by the trial Court at the time of
registration of the plaint. It is for the petitioner-plaintiff to demonstrate
before the trial Court during the suit proceedings as to how he is entitled
to such relief. When he valued the property in question fully and properly
and paid requisite Court fee thereon, the trial Court had no power to
determine as to the extent of relief that could be claimed by him at the
very threshold and require him to amend his suit prayer accordingly.
It may be noticed that it is not the case of the trial Court that the
plaint did not disclose any cause of action whereby it could have rejected
the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In fact, it did not even do so. It
merely returned the plaint requiring the petitioner-plaintiff to restrict his
prayer to a lesser extent.
The order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the trial Court to this effect
is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The trial
Court is directed to examine the plaint presented by the plaintiff only in
the context of the parameters prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, and the Civil Rules of Practice and if it is found to be in order,
register the same as per Rule 23 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. Pending
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
25th APRIL, 2018
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2523 OF 2018
25-04-2018
Mir Firasath Ali Khan .. Petitioner
Sayeeduddin Zafar.. Respondent
Counsel for petitioner: Sri D. Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for respondent: --
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? CASES REFERRED:
--
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2523 OF 2018
O R D E R
The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the plaintiff in
OS SR No.887 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Vikarabad. The said suit was filed with
the following prayer:
i) Directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed
in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule
property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.3-30 guntas in Sy.No.4
and land admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.6 total
admeasuring Ac.5-30 guntas situated at one Compact at
Shaipur Village under the Limits of Tandur Municipality,
Tandur Mandal, R.R.District (presently Vikarabad District),
which is more fully described in the plaint schedule.
ii) And in the event the defendant failed to execute and register
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
schedule property, this Honble Court may be pleased to
execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule
property.
iii) To award the costs of the suit, and
iv) To any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiffs entitled
to may also be awarded in the circumstances of the case
and interest of justice.
The office of the trial Court raised an objection on 04.04.2018,
which reads as under:
C.F.R.No. of 2018 dated 4-4-2018
This is a suit file under section 26 order 7 rule 1 and 2 C.P.C,
suit for specific performance in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.4,
extent Ac.3-30, in survey number 6 extent Ac.2-00 situated at
Saipur village of Tandur Mandal as per the agreement of sale dated
17-2-2015
The agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 is executed only for
an extent of Ac.2-00 in survey number 6 situated at Shaipur village,
but the plaintiff praying to this Court for directions to the
defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
to an extent of Ac.5-30 guntas in Sy.No.4 and 6.
How the suit is maintainable for claiming Ac.5-30 guntas
against the agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 filed in this suit.
Hence the Plaint is returned.
SFO
Returned. Time (7) days.
Thereupon, the petitioner-plaintiff re-submitted the suit stating as
follows:
Objections complied herewith. Hence resubmitted.
4-4-2018
The suit is filed for specific performance as per the
agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 and as per clause No.4 of
agreement of sale he agreed to sale his other property covered
with Memorandum of Conformation of Oral Hiba dated February
2015 and executed on 18/04/2015 for remaining land of the
defendant.
Hence the suit is maintainable as per the agreement and
receipt.
Hence resubmitting.
Sd/-
04/04/2018
The office however opined that the objections required to be heard
on two points:
(1) The point of limitation
(2) How the suit for the entire schedule of property Ac.5-30 guntas
is maintainable, when the Agreement of Sale is for Ac.2-00 guntas
and another receipt is for Ac.2-00 guntas.
The matter was accordingly directed to be posted for hearing on
the Bench and, by order dated 12.04.2018, the trial Court returned the
suit stating as under:
Heard the counsel for plff, the agreement of sale is executed to an
extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.6, and clause no.4 in the agreement of
is pertaining to remaining portion of his land i.e. 3.30 gts in
Sy.No.4 and the 1st party assures second party after completion of
sale transaction under agreement of sale dt.17/2/2015 only the
future transaction takes place. Therefore suit is not maintainable to
the entire extent of Ac.5.20 gts and it is maintainable to extent of
Ac.2.00 only in Sy.No.6 only. Hence counsel is directed to restricted
his prayer to the extent of two acres only.
Aggrieved by the direction to restrict his suit prayer as a condition
precedent for entertainment of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff is before
this Court.
Section 26 CPC deals with institution of suits and states that every
suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint and that, in every
plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit. Order 7 CPC deals with the plaint.
Order 7 Rule 1 details the particulars to be contained in the plaint. Order 7
Rule 7 requires the relief sought to be specifically stated in the plaint.
Order 7 Rule 10 CPC deals with the return of the plaint at any stage if it
has been presented before the wrong Court. Order 7 Rule 11 details the
situations where the plaint can be rejected by the trial Court. This Court,
in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section
126 CPC, framed the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular
Orders 1980 (hereinafter, The Civil Rules of Practice). Chapter II of the
Civil Rules of Practice deals with the Form of Proceedings. Rule 8 therein
deals with the form of the plaint etc. Rule 9 speaks of the cause title of
the plaint etc. Rule 10 deals with the names etc. of the parties. Rule 11
deals with address for service. Rule 12 deals with suits by or against
numerous parties. Rule 14 deals with proceedings in respect of immovable
property and reads as under:
Proceedings in respect of immovable property:-
Every plaint, original petition and memorandum of appeal, in
which relief is sought with respect to immovable property, shall
state, as part of the description thereof the registration district,
sub-district, the name of the village, Municipality or Corporation in
which the property is situate, the survey number of the house
number, if any, the market value of the property and the value for
purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction as computed according to the
provisions of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956
and in cases where the court-fee payable on the rental value, the
annual rental value of the property for which it is let, and there
shall be annexed thereto a statement duly filled in and signed by
the party of the particulars mentioned in Form No.8. In the
absence of the said particulars, the proceedings may be received
but shall not be admitted or filed until the provisions of this rule
have been complied with.
Rule 16 deals with the list of documents to be filed along with the
plaint. Rule 20 deals with the presentation of proceedings and reads as
under:
20. Presentation of Proceedings:-
(1) All plaints, written statements, applications, and other
proceedings and documents may be presented to or filed in court
by delivering the same by the party in person or by his recognised
agent or by his Advocate or by a duly registered clerk of the
Advocate to the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court or such other
officers as may be designated for the purpose by the Judge before
4.00 p.m. on any working day. Provided that in case where the
limitation expires on the same day they may be received by a
Judge even after 4.00 P.M.
(2) The Officer to whom such documents were presented
shall at once endorse on the documents the date of presentation,
the value of the stamp fixed, and if the proceedings, are thereby
instituted, shall insert the serial number.
(3) In case of paper bearing court fee stamps, he shall, if
required issue a receipt in form No.17 in Appendix III-L to these
rules.
(4) Every plaint or proceeding presented to or filed in court
shall be accompanied by as many copies on plain paper of the
plaint or proceeding and the document referred to in Rule 16, as
there are defendants or respondents unless the court otherwise
dispenses with such copies of the documents by reason of their
length or for any other sufficient reason.
Rule 23 states that where, upon examination, the plaint is found to
be in order, it shall be entered in the register of suits, and the Judge shall
pass orders as to the issue of summons or otherwise.
In the aforestated scheme, there is no power vesting in the trial
Court at the time of registration of the suit to venture into the merits of
the matter or possible disputed issues. In the present case, the objection
raised by the office of the trial Court, which was thereafter sustained by
the trial Court, is that the suit prayer relates to a larger extent than can be
claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff as per the suit agreement. This is not an
issue which could have been gone into by the trial Court at the time of
registration of the plaint. It is for the petitioner-plaintiff to demonstrate
before the trial Court during the suit proceedings as to how he is entitled
to such relief. When he valued the property in question fully and properly
and paid requisite Court fee thereon, the trial Court had no power to
determine as to the extent of relief that could be claimed by him at the
very threshold and require him to amend his suit prayer accordingly.
It may be noticed that it is not the case of the trial Court that the
plaint did not disclose any cause of action whereby it could have rejected
the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In fact, it did not even do so. It
merely returned the plaint requiring the petitioner-plaintiff to restrict his
prayer to a lesser extent.
The order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the trial Court to this effect
is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The trial
Court is directed to examine the plaint presented by the plaintiff only in
the context of the parameters prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, and the Civil Rules of Practice and if it is found to be in order,
register the same as per Rule 23 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. Pending
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
25th APRIL, 2018
Comments
Post a Comment