BOBILLI MUNICIPALITY Vs. K SUGUNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOBBILI Municipality-the plaintiff in O. S. No. 74/2003 on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili being aggrieved of the order dated 1. 9. 2003 made in LA. No. 506/2003 in O. S. No. 74/2003 preferred the present civil revision petition. The respondent in the C. R. P. is the petitioner in LA. No. 506/2003 and defendant in O. S. No. 74/2003 aforesaid.

(2.) THE application was filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) read with Section 29 (1) and section 30 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market act 1966 (hereinafter in short referred to 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience)and prayed for rejection of the suit. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, bobbili after referring to Section 29 (1) of the Act and Section 30 of the Act and also Section 23 of the Indian Contract act, after recording reasons, came to the conclusion that in the light of Sections 3, 29 (1) and 30 of the Act aforesaid, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to try the suit and accordingly allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

(3.) SRI Nageshwar Reddy, the learned counsel representing revision petitioner would maintain that the suit was filed by the plaintiff only for the recovery of the amount due under the agreement. Further the learned Counsel also would maintain that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, bobbili should have appreciated whether the ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 (a) or (d)were satisfied or not at this stage but however the learned Judge had entered upon the merits and demerits of the matter since such facts are to be decided and findings are to be recorded after the parties adduced the evidence and not at the stage of considering an application praying for rejection of the plaint. The counsel also would maintain that even on the reading of Sections 3, 29 and 30 of the act and also Section 23 of the Indian contract Act, it cannot be said that a civil suit is barred. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.