RADHAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. G AYYAVOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 463 of 1994, on the file of Sub-Court Poonamallee is the Appellant. He filed the suit for declaration that he had prescribed title to the Suit property by adverse possession and consequential injunction to declare that he is entitled to the Suit property by prescription and for recovery of vacant possession and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, servants and agents from putting up further constructions on the Suit property. The 7th Defendant has filed I.A. No. 142 of 1995 under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. to reject the Plaint on the ground of abuse of process of law, the Suit has not been properly valued and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and the same is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action in the Plaint to institute the Suit.

(2.) The learned Trial Judge accepted the contents of the 7th Defendant and allowed his Application and rejected the Plaint and aggrieved by the same, this Appeal is filed by the Plaintiff.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Court below, without properly appreciating the provisions of Order 7, Rules 10, 10A & 11, C.P.C. and erred in rejecting the Plaint. He further submitted that the Court below allowed the Defendants to file 89 Documents, while entertaining the Application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. and on the basis of the documents filed by the Defendants, rejected the Plaint and the same is not permissible in law. The learned Counsel for the Appellants further submitted (hat the limitation being mixed question of fact and law, ought not to have been gone into by the Trial Court at the stage of rejection of Plaint and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the parties, the Court below ought not to have held that the Suit is barred by limitation or the Plaintiff has no cause of action. He would further submit that even though the Suit was not properly valued, that cannot be a ground for rejecting the Plaint, inasmuch as under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., if the relief claimed is undervalued and the Plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court below, and if he failed to do so, thereafter, the Plaint can be rejected. He therefore, submitted that without giving opportunity to the Plaintiffs regarding valuation to be corrected, a Plaint cannot be rejected on that ground. He would also submit that while deciding the Application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., the Court below should take into consideration only the allegation in the Plaint as well as the documents filed by the Plaintiff along with the Plaint to find out whether the Plaintiff can maintain the Suit or not and at that stage, the Written Statement or the documents filed by the Defendants cannot be looked into and in this case, the Trial Court considered the documents filed by the 7th Defendant, which were filed along with the Written Statement, and that approach is not permissible under law. He therefore, submitted that the Order of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the Plaint may be restored.