KAMMILA DAMODAR RAO Vs. JILLEPALLI THANDAVA KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.860 of 2003 in the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, as damages. He pleaded that he purchased the premises, comprising of three portions, under a sale deed in the year 1998, from the petitioner, on a representation that the said premises were constructed under a valid permission obtained from the 2nd respondent and that the property is free from any defects, as to the title and permissions. According to him, the 2nd respondent issued a notice proposing to demolish the premises, and thereupon, he filed O.S.No.501 of 2000 in the Court III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and even while an order of temporary injunction was in force, the 2nd respondent demolished the building on 13.05.2003. He pleaded that he suffered damage, on account of misrepresentation made by the petitioner and highhanded action on the part of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) Petitioner filed I.A.No.606 of 2005 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. According to him, there was no cause of action for filing of the suit and if at all anything, it arose only in the year 1998 and that the suit was barred by limitation. Respondents filed individual counter-affidavits. Through its order, dated 28.03.2006, the trial Court dismissed the LA. Hence, this C.R.P.

(3.) Sri A.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when admittedly, the sale in favour of the 1st respondent was in the year 1998, the cause of action, if at all, vis-a-vis the petitioner had arisen at that time, and the demolition of the building cannot bring about any cause of action in favour of the 1st respondent. He further contends that the demolition is purely an act attributable to the 2nd respondent and no cause of action can be said to have arisen against the petitioner.