HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2265 of 2008 Dated : 17.06.2010 Between : M/s.Roopsan Coir Products Pvt. Ltd., & others ….. Petitioners a n d Pevimula Vani & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2265 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition arises against the dismissal of I.A.No.632 of 2007 by the common order passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.Nos.632 of 2007, 633 of 2007 and 531 of 2007 in O.S.No.1053 of 2007 on 28.03.2008. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein against the revision petitioners and the second respondent herein claiming the reliefs of declaration that the balance of Rs.20,154/- outstanding is paid by the plaintiff to the fourth defendant and it is in full and final settlement as demanded and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the coir factory and the schedule property, for a mandatory injunction directing the fourth defendant/second respondent herein to execute a proper sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and other reliefs. In the impugned order, the trial Court made the interim injunction granted by it in I.A.No.531 of 2007 against defendants 1 to 3 absolute which part of the order is not the subject matter of this revision petition. I.A.No.632 of 2007 was filed by the revision petitioners herein to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction for the Court and also on the ground of the suit as framed being in violation of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, more so for an untenable relief. The trial Court in the impugned order observed that none of the grounds raised by revision petitioners herein fall within the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and opined that the questions raised have to be decided only after adducing evidence at the trial. The revision petitioners contend that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, which could have therefore, rejected the plaint at the threshold. They further contend that the plaint is in violation of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for a relief of declaration, which is unknown to law. Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety, learned counsel for the first respondent, and Sri M.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the second respondent, are heard. The only point for consideration is whether the request of the revision petitioners for rejection of the plaint is within the scope and ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and what appropriate procedure has to be adopted for determining the questions raised by the revision petitioners. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action or where the relief is under valued and not corrected in spite of an opportunity given by the Court or where the plaint is insufficiently stamped or where the plaint ex facie appears to be barred by any law or where it is not filed in duplicate or where the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII were not complied with. While the other contingencies do not arise in any view in the present case, the suit is not one which is said to not to disclose a cause of action even by the defendants 1 to 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the second respondent seek to bring the situation within the scope of clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure where a plaint can be rejected when the suit appears from the plaint to be barred by any law. The first objection taken by the revision petitioners against the tenability of the suit is about want of territorial jurisdiction for the trial Court. The competence of the Court to try a cause with reference to territorial jurisdiction cannot be considered to be conceiving a situation where a suit is barred by any law. Similarly, suing for mere injunction without suing for specific performance allegedly amounting to violation of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot also be conceived to be a situation under which a suit is barred by any law. The first objection is about the place of suing and the second objection is about the form of suing, which by no means can be construed as presenting any bar by any law against suing on the allegations made in the plaint. Similarly, the reliefs claimed in the plaint, which appear to be a little different from reliefs normally claimed are not shown at this stage to be barred by any law to invite rejection of the plaint at the inception and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial Court that this is not a fit case for invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be found fault with. However, the conclusion of the trial Court that this question can be decided only after adducing evidence at the trial may not be capable of being sustained as the question of territorial jurisdiction and proper frame of the suit or the reliefs claimed can be effectively and comprehensively gone into and decided on the basis of the pleadings of the parties on the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed as of now. The appropriate course of action could have been, therefore, for the defendants to raise all their objections by way of written statement in the suit and then request the trial Court to frame appropriate issues on the questions in controversy out of which these questions may have to be decided as preliminary issues. On the material available as of now, the issues whether the trial Court has territorial jurisdiction, whether the suit is in violation of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and whether the suit as framed is not maintainable ex facie appear to be capable of being decided as preliminary issues and while the revision petition should fail, such a future course of action should be indicated to be followed by the parties and the trial Court. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs and if any or all the defendants 1 to 4 raise the questions of absence of territorial jurisdiction, violation of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and non-maintainability of the suit for the reliefs claimed in their written statements, the trial Court shall frame appropriate issues on the same apart from the issues to be framed on the other questions in controversy as per the pleadings and the trial Court should try and determine such three issues as preliminary issues without waiting for adducing evidence in regular trial and determine the same in accordance with law on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of filing of written statements of the defendants 1 to 4 or if such written statements are already filed, within three months from the date of communication of this order. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th June, 2010 SUR