DURGA NAGESWARA SWAMY Vs. ARJA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner presented a plaint (G.L.No.4317) in the court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda for the relief of recovery of certain amount from the defendant towards arrears of Maktha, i.e., lease amount for the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner. The plaint was presented on 31-12-1999. The office returned the plaint with an endorsement dated:14-6-2000 raising certain objections. The petitioner complying with the objections represented the same.

(2.) HOWEVER , by order dated:7-8-2000, the court below rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit claim is barred by limitation. A further observation was made to the effect that separate court fee ought to have been paid in respect of each claim. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 1198 of 2000 seeking review of the order dated: 7-8-2000 rejecting the plaint. The trial court dismissed the said interlocutory application by order dated:10-11-12000 stating that it does not find any bona fide ground to review the order. The present revision petition is filed against the said order in I.A.No. 1198 of 2000.

(3.) THOUGH the respondent is served with notice, he did not choose to respond. A reading of the order of the trial court dated: 7-8-2000 in rejecting the plaint reveals that the lower court did not apply its mind to the facts of the case and it has gone by the objections raised by the office. The petitioner herein has categorically stated in the plaint, particularly in paragraphs 4 & 7 the various amounts that are due from the defendant towards payment of Maktha. There were also some part payments for each year and thereby the claim of the plaintiff is not barred by limitation. If the plea of the petitioner, as contained in he plaint, is taken to be true on its face value, the suit cannot be said to have been barred by limitation. In fact that is the only way of looking at it, while scrutinizing the suit at the threshold. Examination of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 does not permit the court to examine or declare upon the correctness of the contents or other wise of the plaint.