S RAMA MOHAN REDDY Vs. S SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is coming up for admission today. Heard Sri Ramesh, the counsel representing Sri S.V.Bhat, counsel for revision petitioner.

(2.) The revision petitioner Sri S. Ram Mohan Reddy, is the petitioner in I.A.No.352 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Produttur and he is the defendant in the suit. The respondent herein, the plaintiff in the said suit, S.Saraswati filed the suit for declaration that her marriage between her and the defendant is true and valid and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit was originally instituted as O.S.No.190 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, which is now pending as O.S.No.77 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur. Sri S. Ram Mohan Reddy also filed a suit in O.S.No.189 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram now pending as O.S.No.78 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur praying for a negative declaration that the said Saraswati is not his legally wedded wife and for consequential relief. The said S. Ram Mohan Reddy, the defendant in O.S.No.77 of 2004 filed an application I.A.No.352 of 2004 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint in O.S.No.77 of 2004. The learned Judge after recording reasons ultimately dismissed the application holding that such suit in a civil Court cannot be said to be barred and also observing that in the facts of the case there is cause of action to file the suit. Aggrieved by the said order the present C.R.P. is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Sri Ramesh, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and would maintain that in the light of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the suit of this nature can be said to be impliedly barred. Even otherwise, there is no cause of action and in view of the same the order made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cannot be sustained. The learned counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the reasons recorded by the learned judge and also the decisions which had been relied upon by the contesting parties.