SERIGUDEM PADMAMMA Vs. G PREMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel representing the first respondent. Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the plaint was returned once and the objections had been complied with and again second time the plaint was returned and questioning the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred. The counsel also would maintain that in the light of the view expressed by this Court in AMIR ALI VS. MANECK H. GHANDIALI AND OTHERS, 2008 2 ALT 205 the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable. The counsel also strongly relied on a decision of this court in THANAMKI PRASAD vs. GUNTAMADUGU PULIAMMA AND OTHERS, 2005 4 ALT 119 and would maintain that in the light of the view expressed by the learned Judge in the said decision, suitable directions may be given to number the suit. The counsel also would further explain that the objections raised for the second time are un-sustainable objections. The counsel also would maintain that the decree obtained by the second respondent is an ex-parte decree and the learned Judge ought to have considered that the petitioner filed an application to set aside the same and the same is pending. The learned counsel also would maintain that the learned judge ought to have considered that the relief of present suit is to cancel the document bearing No. , 2343 of 2007 dated 19. 6. 2007 i. e. , agreement of sale cum gpa in favour of the first respondent and failed to see that the document was executed subsequent to ex parte decree in O. S. No. 699 of 2006 dated 28. 2. 2007. Further the counsel would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner is in exclusive possession in the plaint schedule property till today and to that effect, pahanies pertaining to 2007-2008 are also filed along with the plaint. Further the counsel also pointed out that the learned judge ought to have considered that the first respondent colluded with the second respondent and got created the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 19. 6. 2007 and in the light of the same, directing the petitioner-plaintiff to represent the plaint may not be just and proper and let the learned Principal Senior Civil judge, Medak District number the suit if it is otherwise in order inasmuch as these objections are unsustainable objections.

(2.) ON the contrary Sri Prabhakar Peri , learned counsel representing the first respondent would maintain that this procedure which had been adopted by the petitioner-plaintiff is a peculiar procedure. The counsel also would maintain that when the plaint was returned raising certain objections, the counsel representing the plaintiff could have represented the same after complying with the objections and suppose the office is not satisfied, the counsel could have taken steps to see that the matter is called on bench and could have satisfied the court relating to objections and the counsel also would maintain that in such circumstances, the learned Judge is expected to make a judicial order instead of following the said procedure straight way approaching this Court by filing the Civil Revision Petition cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, in the light of Order 43 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Civil Revision Petition as such is not maintainable. At any rate the learned counsel would maintain that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner-plaintiff may be given liberty to re-present the plaint after complying with the objections. Heard the counsel.

(3.) THE revision petitioner filed the Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 6. 5. 2008 made in O. S. Sr. No. 1279 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior civil Judge, Medak and no doubt, it is stated that the same was re-presented before the vacation judge. In the plaint the relief of cancellation of document-agreement of sale/gpa and the relief of perpetual injunction and other reliefs had been prayed for. The plaint was returned on 24. 4. 2008 granting seven days time and the same was represented on 6. 5. 2008. Again Office raised several objections and returned the plaint for compliance on 6. 5. 2008. Being aggrieved of the second return of the plaint, the present Civil Revision petition had been preferred.