IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) 19.02.2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISON PETITION NO. 4081 OF 2009 Between: Veeramachineni Madhava Rao, S/o Seetaramayya ..... PETITIONER AND Talla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana S/o Ratnam .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No. 1177 of 2009 in O.S.No. 93 of 2009 dated 03.08.2009 on the file of Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam. Petitioner is the defendant. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit O.S.No. 93 of 2009 to refund the amount in respect of an agricultural land of Ac. 53 in S.No. 68 P and 69 P of Narasingapuram Village, Tripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District. It is stated that the petitioner-defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 4.2.2007. It is also stated that along with the suit the defendant also filed a separate application I.A No. 1177 of 2009 praying the Court to reject the plaint since the cause of action mentioned in the plaint has not arisen within the jurisdiction and that application was dismissed by the Court below holding as under: “Heard. According to plaintiff, the sale agreement was executed at Gajuwaka whereas the defendant contends that the transaction has taken place at Vijayawada. It is a disputed fact to be decided in evidence. At this stage no enquiry can be done as it requires evidence. Hence, in view of the above circumstances and in view of the decision reported in 2004(b) ALT 454, the petition is dismissed. A separate issue will be framed accordingly.” Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant submits that the agreement of sale was executed at Vijayawada and not within the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam and the Principal and Sessions Judge’s Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He has drawn our attention to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908, which reads as under: “11. Rejection of plaint: The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) Where the relief claimed is property valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) Where it is not filed in duplicate (f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 (provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff). In this case the controversy is with regard to territorial jurisdiction. The trial Court has already observed that necessary issue will be framed. In those circumstances I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Dt. 19.02.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies