SRIRAMULA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. SANAKA VENKATESWARA RAO
LAWS(APH)-2019-7-18
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 31,2019

Sriramula Srinivasa Rao Appellant
VERSUS
Sanaka Venkateswara Rao Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed by the petitioner - plaintiff against the return endorsement of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, passed in an un-numbered Original Suit of the year 2018.
(2.)I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff ['plaintiff', for brevity], at the stage of admission. I have perused the material record.
(3.)From the pleadings and submissions, the facts discernable are as follows:
The plaintiff instituted the present suit (un-numbered suit), on 12.11.2018, before the Senior Civil Court, Mangalagiri. After scrutiny, the office of the said Court returned the plaint, on 14.11.2018, with certain office objections. The plaint was re-presented, on 20.11.2018, by making a submission that the objections taken by the office of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge are complied with. On 06.12.2018, the plaint was returned with the following objection taken by the office of the Senior Civil Court, Mangalagiri:

'The plaint pecuniary value jurisdiction is below 20 Lakhs as per the Hon'ble High Court ROC.no.891/50-1/2018(2011), Dt.09.11.2018. Hence, the suit is returned to file before the proper Court.'
[Reproduced verbatim]
In view of the said return endorsement of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, the plaintiff presented the plaint and instituted the suit accordingly before the Principal Junior Civil Court, Mangalagiri, on 11.12.2018, along with a certificate related to Court fee already paid. On 11.12.2018, the office of the Principal Junior Civil Court, Mangalagiri, returned the plaint with the following endorsement:

'How this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit as A.P. Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act no.26/2018) came into force with effect from 15.11.2018 vide G.O.Ms.no.175 Law ( Rs.& LA and Justice, Home.Courts-A) department, dt.08.11.2018. Moreover the said Act has not come into force with retrospective effect. Hence, the plaint is returned as it is filed on 12.11.2018 vide CFR.no.4757 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Mangalagiri. [See 2001(4) ALT page no.270 (DB)].
[Reproduced verbatim]
Thereafter, the plaintiff re-presented the plaint and instituted the suit once again in Senior Civil Court, Mangalagiri. However, by a detailed order, dated 03.01.2019, the Senior Civil Court once again returned the plaint observing as follows: -

"...The judgment as referred by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, is not applicable to the case on hand and the said judgment is applicable only if the suits are already instituted and pending on the file of the competent courts of jurisdiction and the law as on the date of filing of suit would govern until the disposal of the suit. Whereas in the present case, the plaintiff filed the suit and cognizance was not taken and in such circumstances the judgment as referred is not applicable to the case on hand and it is for the plaintiff to avail the remedy as available under law only. Hence, the plaint is returned."

3.1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in the prayer portion, the date of return and the CFR are incorrectly mentioned and that the date of final return by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, is 03.01.2019, and the CFR number is 4757 of 2018.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.