DHANNURI VENKATA RAMANAMMA Vs. DHANNURI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Palivela Satyaraja Babu, learned counsel representing the appellants and Sri Hari Sridhar, Advocate representing Sri Muddu Vijai, learned counsel for the respondent. Both the counsel made submissions at length touching the merits and demerits of the matter. However, both the counsel also pointed out to paragraph No. 17 of the judgment made in A.S.No. 109 of 1992 On the file of learned District Judge, Khammam. The appellants herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.169 of 1989 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of perpetual injunction in relation to the suit schedule property at Kumaraswamigudem, hamlet of Marrigudem of Kunavaram mandal. It is not in serious controversy that the plaint schedule property falls within the. agency area. The court of first instance having recorded the evidence of P.W.I and D.W.I and marking Exs.A.l, A.2 and Ex.B.l decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred A.S.No. 109 of 1992 on the file of learned District Judge, Khammam and the appellate court reversed the same touching the merits and demerits of the matter, but however specifically holding that the competent agency court alone can entertain such suit in an agency area and civil court cannot entertain the same. Having observed so, this court is of the considered opinion, the appellate court as well should have returned the plaint to be presented to the proper court instead of entering upon the merits and demerits of the matter. It is needless to say that Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') deals with 'return of plaint'; and Order VII Rule 10A of the CPC also deals with the power of Court to fix a date of appearance in the court where plaint is to be; filed after its return. The Explanation to Order VII Rule 10(1) of the CPC specifies that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule. It is also needless to say that without further service of summons, the date may be fixed for appearance of the parties under Order VII Rule 10A of the CPC.

(2.) In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion, that the appellate court totally erred in touching the merits and demerits of the matter having observed that the concerned agency courl in agency area alone would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and not by an ordinary civil court. In view of the same, the judgments and decrees made by the courts below are hereby set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before the proper court, that is, the concerned and appropriate agency court in the agency area, within a period of two months and it is needless to say that the concerned agency court has to entertain the same and to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

(3.) Accordingly, the second appeal is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.