HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5587 OF 2010 Dated: 10.12.2010 Between: Nuli Surya Prakasa Rao. ..Petitioner And Kuchibhotla Sri Krishna Sarma .. Respondents This Court made the following HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5587 OF 2010 ORDER: This is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dated 3.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.391 of 2010 in O.S.No.3387 of 2004 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The petitioner-defendant filed the above I.A. under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC before the Court below seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is the case of the petitioner-defendant that the plaintiff fraudulently claimed the rent as Rs.1500/- p.m., and therefore, the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the suit as it comes under the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Act. The Court below having observed that for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the averments of the plaint alone have to be taken into consideration and the objection raised by the defendant with regard to the quantum of rent is a question of fact which has to be decided at the time of trial or if situation warrants the same will be decided as a preliminary issue, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a reading of the plaint averments, it is apparent that the plaintiff claiming rent at the rate of Rs.1500/- p.m., filed the suit for eviction of the defendant. But it is the contention of the defendant that the rent is only Rs.650/- per month and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The ground raised by the defendant in the present case is as to the quantum of rent. The same is nothing but a question of fact, which has to be decided after adducing evidence by both the parties. Further, it is well settled that for rejection of the plaint, the averments of the plaint only can be taken into consideration, but not any possible defence taken by the defendant. Further, if the pleadings in the plaint bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court, then the plaint can be rejected. It is also the contention of the petitioner-defendant that during the pendency of the suit, the Rent Control Act has been amended in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction, according to which, in respect of the premises, the rent of which exceeds.3,500/- p.m., the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain such matters and since the rental value of the premises in the present case is at the rate of Rs.1500/- as claimed by the plaintiff, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. It is well settled law that the rights of the parties have to be decided as on the date of the filing the suit, but not on subsequent changes. The amendment took place subsequent to filing of the present suit and therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 10th December, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5587 OF 2010 10.12.2010