Andhra High Court
Sompalli Venkatarathnam And Ors. vs Kilari Lingaiah And Ors. on 24 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004 (4) ALD 558, 2008 (2) ALT 598
Author: L N Reddy
Bench: L N Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This matter is placed before the Court on a note put up by the office, in relation to maintainability.
2. The appellants filed a suit claiming various amounts towards damages. The appellants are the
owners of the lands in various survey numbers in Chellapanaidupalli Village of Nellore District. It is
their case that the lands in neighbouring survey numbers, belonging to the defendants, were
converted into fish and prawn tanks and thereby the lands of the appellants were rendered unfit for
cultivation. The Trial Court rejected the plaint through its order dated 17-3-2004, on taking the view
that the causes of action for the individual appellants herein are different, and single suit by all of
them cannot be maintained. It was also pointed out in the order that, if individual claims are taken
into account, the corresponding suits have to be filed in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, having
territorial jurisdiction over the matter,
3. The appellants filed the C.M.A., under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C. against the order rejecting the
plaint. The office raised an objection to the effect that appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, cannot be
maintained, against such an order. Learned Counsel for the appellants re-presented the matter with
an endorsement to the effect that the rejection of plaint is a deemed decree under Section 2(2) of
CPC, and as such CMA under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C., is maintainable.
4. Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that though an order
rejecting plaint is included in the definition of decree, under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of C.P.C., it
cannot be treated on par with a decree in the normal parlance, for the purpose of deciding the forum
of appeal. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court, in Ragam Yellaiah and Ors. v. Chinta
Shankamiah, 2003 (3) ALD 105, learned Counsel submits that a distinction has to be maintained in
decrees as such, and deemed decrees, at least, in the context of deciding the appellate forum. He also
contends that rejection of the plaint on the ground that separate suits are to have been filed, cannot
be treated as a final pronouncement on the rights of the parties, and the order deserves to be treated
as the one, of returning the plaint. On this premise, learned Counsel submits that the appeal is
maintainable under Rule 1(a) of Order 43.
5. The Trial Court undertook extensive discussion after hearing the Counsel for the plaintiffs,
rejected the plaint mainly on the ground of mis-joinder of parties. It was of the view that the causes
of action for the individual appellants/plaintiffs are different. The extent and location of the lands of
individual appellants varied from one another. It was also observed that the grievance of each
plaintiff is against an identified defendant, and not collective against all the defendants.
6. It is not in dispute that the rejection of the plaint is under Rule 11 (d) of Order 7 C.P.C. An appeal
is provided for under Order 43, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C., only against orders returning the plaint, and not
Sompalli Venkatarathnam And Ors. vs Kilari Lingaiah And Ors. on 24 June, 2004
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1864314/ 1
Sompalli Venkatarathnam And Ors. vs Kilari Lingaiah And Ors. on 24 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004 (4) ALD 558, 2008 (2) ALT 598
Author: L N Reddy
Bench: L N Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This matter is placed before the Court on a note put up by the office, in relation to maintainability.
2. The appellants filed a suit claiming various amounts towards damages. The appellants are the
owners of the lands in various survey numbers in Chellapanaidupalli Village of Nellore District. It is
their case that the lands in neighbouring survey numbers, belonging to the defendants, were
converted into fish and prawn tanks and thereby the lands of the appellants were rendered unfit for
cultivation. The Trial Court rejected the plaint through its order dated 17-3-2004, on taking the view
that the causes of action for the individual appellants herein are different, and single suit by all of
them cannot be maintained. It was also pointed out in the order that, if individual claims are taken
into account, the corresponding suits have to be filed in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, having
territorial jurisdiction over the matter,
3. The appellants filed the C.M.A., under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C. against the order rejecting the
plaint. The office raised an objection to the effect that appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, cannot be
maintained, against such an order. Learned Counsel for the appellants re-presented the matter with
an endorsement to the effect that the rejection of plaint is a deemed decree under Section 2(2) of
CPC, and as such CMA under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C., is maintainable.
4. Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that though an order
rejecting plaint is included in the definition of decree, under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of C.P.C., it
cannot be treated on par with a decree in the normal parlance, for the purpose of deciding the forum
of appeal. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court, in Ragam Yellaiah and Ors. v. Chinta
Shankamiah, 2003 (3) ALD 105, learned Counsel submits that a distinction has to be maintained in
decrees as such, and deemed decrees, at least, in the context of deciding the appellate forum. He also
contends that rejection of the plaint on the ground that separate suits are to have been filed, cannot
be treated as a final pronouncement on the rights of the parties, and the order deserves to be treated
as the one, of returning the plaint. On this premise, learned Counsel submits that the appeal is
maintainable under Rule 1(a) of Order 43.
5. The Trial Court undertook extensive discussion after hearing the Counsel for the plaintiffs,
rejected the plaint mainly on the ground of mis-joinder of parties. It was of the view that the causes
of action for the individual appellants/plaintiffs are different. The extent and location of the lands of
individual appellants varied from one another. It was also observed that the grievance of each
plaintiff is against an identified defendant, and not collective against all the defendants.
6. It is not in dispute that the rejection of the plaint is under Rule 11 (d) of Order 7 C.P.C. An appeal
is provided for under Order 43, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C., only against orders returning the plaint, and not
Sompalli Venkatarathnam And Ors. vs Kilari Lingaiah And Ors. on 24 June, 2004
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1864314/ 1
No comments:
Post a Comment