IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5229 of 2010 Between: S. Srinivasulu .. Petitioner AND Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd., Miryalaguda Branch .. Respondent ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda on 16-07-2010 in I.A. No.563 of 2007 in O.S. No.50 of 2007. The 3rd defendant filed I.A. No.563 of 2007 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to reject the plaint as barred by limitation. He contended that the chit in question was run by the respondent/plaintiff from 02-07-1995 for a value of Rs.2,50,000/- with 50 monthly instalments of Rs.5,000/- each and the 1st defendant participated in the auction on 22-09- 1996 and became the successful bidder. The 1st defendant was claimed to have been paid Rs.1,33,290/- after adjustments and was stated to have paid 15 monthly instalments as on the date of auction. The future liability was guaranteed by the sureties furnished by the 1st defendant and as there was default later, the chit fund company attempted to adjust the amount in the personal chit of the 3rd defendant and his wife which was held to be invalid by District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad on 19-12-2003 and thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the sum. The 3rd defendant claimed that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 37 of the Limitation Act, 1963 being beyond three years from the date of default and the proceedings before the Consumer Forum will not be available for any extension of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or otherwise. The request for rejection of the plaint was resisted by the plaintiff contending that the plea of the plaintiff is for exclusion of the time spent before the Consumer Fora at the District, State and National level and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 squarely applies to the facts of the case. The question of rejecting the plaint as sought for by the 3rd defendant does not arise. While the rival contentions of the parties were so articulated, the impugned order was passed by the trial Court stating that the office of the Court took an objection at the time of filing of the suit and the predecessor of the Judge, who passed the impugned order, passed the order on 16-03-2007 on the docket that the period shall be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with respect to the time spent before the Consumer Fora. The learned Judge opined that the Court cannot revise its own order and dismissed the petition as not maintainable. The revision by the 3rd defendant against the said order contends that the suit filed after a lapse of seven years could not have been entertained by the office or by the Court when Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable only when the plaintiff has chosen a wrong Forum under a bona fide intention in good faith in respect of the same dispute between the same parties and it is not a case where a wrong Forum or Court was approached under any mistaken bona fide impression to take shelter under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the 3rd defendant sought for revision of the order. Heard Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the respondent. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order of dismissal of the petition without considering it on merits is sustainable ? Point: The impugned order shows that before taking the plaint on file in O.S. No.50 of 2007, the office of the Court raised an objection on the administrative side about the suit being barred by limitation and after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, the Presiding Judge of the Court passed an order on 16-03-2007 excluding the period spent before the Consumer Fora under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and directing registration of the plaint. It was after the appearance of the defendants before the Court in the suit that the 3rd defendant came up with the present application, and the earlier order passed before the registration of the suit could not have been considered to be an order on merits which cannot be revised by the same Court. Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is the duty of the Court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period, even if limitation has not been set up as a defence and when a defendant specifically raises that question, the Court could not have refused to determine the said question in accordance with law on merits. The question whether the prosecution of proceedings before the Consumer Fora can amount to prosecution of “another civil proceeding” in “a Court” in good faith with due diligence concerning the same matter in issue between the same parties is the question which has to be gone into and decided by the trial Court after hearing both the parties. Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party has the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial Court to determine whether the suit appears from the statement in the plaint itself to be bared by any law. The request of the 3rd defendant could not have been considered either as a request for review or a request for revision of the earlier order which was passed before registration of the suit without any notice to the defendants and the issue has to be decided on merits. Therefore, the impugned order in I.A. No.563 of 2007 in O.S. No.50 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalaguda is set aside and I.A. No.563 of 2007 in O.S. No.50 of 2007 is remitted back to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda for determination on merits in accordance with law after every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The civil revision petition is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14-12-2010 Svv