THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3221 of 2001 Date: 16.09.2011 Between: Kilaru Balaji … Petitioner and Smt. Vavineni Suseela another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3221 of 2001 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 8.11.1999 in G.L.No.21123 of 1999 in an un-numbered suit passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, rejecting the suit for recovery of money. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,28,755/- against the defendants claiming that he and the 1st defendant jointly purchased the Tractor and Trailor by availing loan from Andhra Bank, Penamaluru Branch and the plaintiff paid the entire loan amount with interest and cleared the loan by 23.5.1997. Since he has repaid the amount to the Bank on behalf of the 1st defendant, he filed suit for recovery of the amount. The office took an objection about the maintainability of suit against the 1st defendant. 3. As seen from the impugned order, inspite of granting reasonable time, the plaintiff did not comply with the said objections and on that ground the plaint was rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly urged that the impugned order of the trial Court in rejecting the plaint is erroneous and the order does not disclose under what ground it was rejected. He, however, requested this Court to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. 5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to remand the matter to the trial Court? 6. Admittedly, as per the plaint averments, the 1st defendant and the plaintiff have jointly availed loan from Andhra Bank and the said loan was cleared by the plaintiff on 23.5.1997. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he paid the entire loan amount on his behalf and also on behalf of the 1st defendant and hence he is entitled to get refund of the said amount from the 1st defendant. Since the plaintiff made a claim against the 1st defendant and having paid the Court fee, the trial Court should hear the counsel on record for the plaintiff and pass appropriate orders about its maintainability. As could be seen from the impugned order, the trial Court did not reject the plaint on merits. 7. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court dated 8.11.1999 and remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication about the maintainability of the suit on presentation by the plaintiff and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 16.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3221 of 2001 16.09.2011 (Msr)