IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.5263 of 2010 Between: Gourineni Aruna and another … Petitioners and Gourineni Laxmi Bai … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.5263 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners/defendants aggrieved by order dated 30.09.2010 passed in I.A. No.460 of 2010 in O.S. No.61 of 2009 by the Senior Civil Judge at Siricilla. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No.460 of 2010 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff herself admitted the fact that she did not put her thumb mark on any paper for any purpose. Therefore, it is to be presumed that she has not filed the plaint and her son got filed the plaint through her. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the said I.A., on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition averments and stated that she lost her vision long back but she filed the suit and she put her thumb impressions whenever needed on the advice of her advocate and only to drag on the matter, the petitioners/defendants filed said I.A. with false averments. The Court below after considering the material averments, framed the issue whether there are grounds to reject the plaint as prayed for, and was of the opinion that the ground raised by the petitioners/defendants is not a reasonable, sufficient and valid to reject the plaint at this stage since the plaintiff has paid necessary Court fee and filed the suit and whether she has proved the suit claim or not is to be decided only on appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties and simply because of the plaintiff has no vision by the date of filing of the suit, it is not a ground for rejection of the plaint as claimed by the petitioners/defendants. Further opinion of the Court below was that by taking number of adjournments for adducing evidence, the petitioners/defendants filed said I.A. on flimsy grounds and accordingly, dismissed the said I.A. Assailing the same, the petitioners/defendants filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants submits that during the course of trial/cross examination, the plaintiff herself accepted that she did not put her thumb mark on any paper for any purpose and she lost her sight and cannot see since last thirty years. Therefore, he submits that this admission itself is sufficient to say that the plaintiff did not file the suit but she was impersonated. Without proper appreciation of the said fact, the Court below erroneously dismissed the said I.A. and the same is liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioners/defendants is that though there was clear admission by the respondent/plaintiff that she did not put any thumb impression on any paper, the Court below without proper appreciation of the said contention erroneously dismissed the said I.A. But, it could be seen from the impugned order that the respondent/plaintiff filed counter stating that she filed the suit and she put her thumb impressions whenever needed on the advice of her advocate. When it is categorically mentioned in the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff that she filed suit, it cannot be held that the Court below had erroneously dismissed the I.A., filed by the petitioners/defendants, seeking to reject the plaint. If the respondent/plaintiff is permitted to proceed with the suit, I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/defendants in contesting the matter, as it is for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the suit claim. Further, the evidence on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff is already over and the matter is coming up for adducing evidence by the defendants, at this stage, for the purpose of adducing evidence on behalf of the petitioners/defendants number of adjournments have been taken place but without adducing evidence, filed the said I.A. on insubstantial ground. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel and as the trial is already commenced the Court below rightly dismissed the said I.A. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 27.12.2010 LSK