THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 2026, 2027, 2028 & 2029 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: Dt:27-07-2010 Between : K.V.V. Balasubramanyam and others ..Petitioners And B. Markandeyulu and others .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, Sri H. Venugopal, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondents : Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Sr.Counsel < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : 1) 2003 (3) ALD 253 2) AIR 1921 Sind. 166 3) AIR 1921 Calcutta 277 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 2026, 2027, 2028 & 2029 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: Common questions of law and fact arise in these eight revisions. Hence they are heard and disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in the suits. O.S.Nos.928, 929, 930 and 931 of 2007 are filed by different plaintiffs, against common defendants, in the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. M/s Totem Projects Private Limited, figured as 3rd plaintiff in all the suits. The relief of specific performance of agreements of sale in respect of various items of immovable property and other consequential reliefs are prayed for. The plaints were initially presented on the day, on which the Courts reopened; after summer vacation viz., 02-06-2007. They were returned with certain objections. By the time the plaints were represented, it appears that transactions in respect of the suit schedule properties have taken place. Therefore subsequent purchasers were included in the array of parties, while re- presenting the plaints. Mention was also made to the subsequent developments in detail. The suits were ultimately numbered, some time in September, 2007. 1st defendant, in all the suits, by name, Burupally Sivarama Krishna, on the one hand, and defendants 3 to 10 in all the suits, on the other hand, filed I.A.Nos.3326, 3327 and 3330 to 3335 of 2007, under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the respective plaints. According to them, the suits are not maintainable in law, or on facts, and all of them are barred by limitation. The relevant facts touching upon the execution of agreements of sale, and the developments that have taken subsequent thereto were stated, in detail. It was urged that though the plaints were presented on 02-06- 2007, which is the last date of limitation for filing the suits, they were represented long thereafter, with altogether different set of facts. According to them, the plaints, that were presented on 02-06-2007, on the one hand, and those, which ultimately came to be numbered, on the other hand, are totally different in purport and content. It was also urged that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and subsequent purchasers, on the other hand, in the respective suits. The plaintiffs opposed the applications by filing counters. According to them, the suits were filed on the re-opening day, after summer vacation, and they were within the period of limitation. It was pleaded that the necessity to plead further facts and to add defendant Nos.10 onwards in all the suits arose, on account of execution of sale deeds by the defendants 1 and 2, in their favour. Through separate, but similar orders dated 22-09-2008, the trial Court dismissed all the applications. Hence, these eight civil revision petitions. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, Sri H. Venugopal, and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants submit that the suits are barred by limitation and the respective plaints were liable to be rejected. They contend that the plaints filed on 02-06-2007 do not comply with the requirements of pleadings under Orders VI and VII C.P.C., and in that view of the matter, there was no effective presentation of the suits on that date as contemplated under Rule I of Order IV C.P.C. Learned counsel submit that, once the plaints were not numbered and returned on the last day of limitation, i.e., 02-06-2007, the subsequent steps do not have the effect of bringing the suits within limitation. They further submit that it was totally impermissible for the plaintiffs to add defendant Nos.10 onwards, in each suit, except by filing applications under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., much less to add paragraphs to the returned plaints, otherwise than by filing applications under Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. They relied upon certain decided cases. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that plaints in all the suits were presented before the trial Court within the period of limitation, duly paying the requisite Court fee, but were returned on certain objections. He contends that the necessity to add some persons as defendants and to add certain paragraphs in the plaints, while representing them, arose, on account of the sale transactions, which took place in the meanwhile. He submits that it is always permissible for a plaintiff in a suit, to add parties and to incorporate further details, before the suit is numbered, without filing applications under the relevant provisions of law. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in MOPARTHI SAROJINI DEVI v. KAVURU RAMACHANDRA PRASAD[1] Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the steps taken by the plaintiffs subsequent to the return of the plaints were only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and for a total and effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties. The agreements of sale were between the plaintiffs in the respective suits, on the one hand, and defendants 1 to 9, on the other hand. It was pleaded that the 1st defendant acted on his behalf and on behalf of defendants 2 to 9, while executing the agreements. The filing of the suits was preceded by exchange of notices. If the limitation is calculated from the date of refusal by the defendants, to execute the sale deeds, as alleged by the plaintiffs, three years period would expire on 15-05-2007. The agreements of sale are dated, 16-11- 2003. The transactions were to be completed within six months, i.e. by 16-05-2004. The last date for limitation for filing of the suits was, 15- 05-2007. Since Courts closed for summer vacation, the plaints were presented on 02-06-2007. The office of the Court returned the plaints with certain objections. By the time the plaints were re-presented, the defendants 1 to 9 have executed sale deeds in favour of number of persons. The plaintiffs therefore have incorporated that plea as to this development and impleaded all the subsequent purchasers. The principal ground on which, the defendants 1 to 9 wanted the trial Court to reject the plaints was, that the plaints, that came to be numbered as suits, are substantially different from those, presented on 02-06-2007. Objection is also raised for inclusion of large number of persons as defendants, and incorporation of elaborate pleadings in the plaints, subsequent to 02-06-2007, without calling of objections. Section 3 of the Limitation Act places an embargo on filing of suits and other proceedings, after the expiry of the period of limitation, prescribed therefor. The word “presentation” mentioned in Section 3 assumes significance, particularly when it is read in conjunction with Rule 1 of Order IV C.P.C. Both the provisions read as under: “Sec.3 of the Limitation Act. Bar of limitation.—(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. (2) xxx” Rule 1 of Order IV C.P.C: Suit to be commenced by plaint. —(1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint in duplicate to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable. (3) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2)”. A suit can be said to have been instituted, if only the plaint accords with Orders VI and VII C.P.C. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV declares that, unless the plaint conforms to the said provisions, the suit cannot be said to have been properly instituted. Except stating that the plaints were not properly presented, or that the suits are not properly instituted, the defendants are not able to point out the specific non-compliance, if any, with Orders VI and VII C.P.C. It is not even their case that the plaints were returned on account of their not being in conformity with Orders VI and VII C.P.C. I n MITSUI BUSSAN KAISHA LIMITED v. TOTARAM BHAGWANDAS[2], the Sind High Court interpreted Rule 1 of Order IV C.P.C., and said that a suit is deemed to have been instituted on the date of presentation of the plaint, even if the plaint is imperfect. In the same year, the Calcutta High Court took the view in H.H. MAHARAJA OF COOCH-HEHAR v. RAJA MAHENDRA RANJAN RAI[3] that a suit is instituted on the date on which plaint is presented, irrespective of the date on which it is registered. It is no doubt true that the provision was amended in the year 2002 by adding sub-rule (3). It has already been mentioned that the defendants are not able to point out as to how the plaint does not accord with Orders VI and VII. As long as the broad requirements of the pleadings are complied with, the minor and inconsequential defects do not affect the rights that flow from the presentation of a plaint. Strong objection is raised for subsequent inclusion of parties and addition of paragraphs, after the plaint was returned. The law is fairly well settled in this regard. A plaintiff has full liberty to include or exclude parties and alter the contents of the plaint, after presentation, till it is numbered. He does not have to file an application, either for inclusion or exclusion of the parties or for alteration of the contents of the plaint. I n MOPARTHI SAROJINI DEVI’s case ( 1 supra), this Court held as under: “Para-10: The first submission of the learned Counsel for the defendant is as to incorporation of the plea of recovery of possession in the plaint. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that Para 6(A) was inserted in the plaint and the relief was permitted to be altered without there being an application for amendment of the plaint and the same was contrary to law. If the incorporation of Para 6(A) and the relief of recovery of possession were done subsequent to the numbering and registration of the suit, the contention of the learned Counsel deserves to be accepted. However, if the contents of the plaint are altered either in the body of the plaint or in the relief portion, before the plaint is accepted and the suit is registered by the Court, it does not require the filing of an application for amendment of the pleadings. It is evident that the plaintiffs incorporation Para 6(A) on the basis of the stand taken by the defendant in the reply after the plaint was returned and before registration of the suit. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted”. Hence, there was no necessity for the plaintiffs to file applications for addition of parties or inclusion of paragraphs, in the plaint, before the suit was numbered. Defendants place reliance upon Rule 7 of Order VI C.P.C., to contend that any amendment of a plaint, even before the suit is numbered, must be with the permission of the Court. The provision reads as under: Rule 7 of Order VI: Departure.—“No pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same”. Firstly, this provision gets attracted if only any new ground of claim or allegation of fact, inconsistent with the existing pleadings, is raised. The defendants are not able to point out as to which plea in the plaint presented by the plaintiffs is inconsistent with the other. Secondly, Rule 7 of Order VI is in the company of bunch of provisions, which guide the preparation of a plaint or pleading. Starting from Rule 2, that mandates that the pleadings shall state material facts and not evidence, the suggestions proceed to indicate the form of pleadings (Rule 3), nature of particulars to be given (Rule 4), specification of condition precedent (Rule 6), prohibition against departure from a version (Rule 7), nature of denial of contract (Rule 8), the statement as to effect of the document (Rule 9), manner in which malice or knowledge must be pleaded (Rule 10) etc., up to Rule 15, covering the stages of signature of pleadings, furnishing of addresses, verification of pleadings. The effort in making reference to those provisions is to drive home the point that they are guidelines for preparation of the pleadings, than those prescribing any procedure. The provisions which are procedural, in strict sense and that come into operation, are Rule 16, which provides for striking of the unnecessary pleadings and Rule 17, which prescribes the procedure for amendment of pleadings. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that a plaintiff in a suit needs the permission of the Court to amend the pleadings, even before the suit is numbered. Such a course would be, in a way, contradiction in terms. Further, the occasion, either to issue notice to other side, or to examine the nature of amendment does not exist, unless the suit is numbered. It is not as if the defendants do not have any remedy, if they are of the view that certain persons who are not necessary or proper parties to the suit are impleaded as defendants or that any portion of the plaint is unnecessary, and thereby liable to be struck off. As regards the first aspect, an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., can be filed for striking off the parties. As of now, the complaint in this regard is not from the parties who take objection for their being arrayed as defendants. As and when an application for this purpose is filed, it needs to be considered on its own merits. Similarly, Rule 16 of Order VI enables a party to a suit to file an application to strike off the pleadings, which are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Rejection of plaint is an extraordinary step, that entails in denial of access to the Court, for the plaintiff. That is the reason why Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., enlists limited grounds, on which, a plaint can be rejected. The party that seeks rejection of a plaint must bring the application strictly within such grounds. They cannot be expanded through interpretative process. The trial Court, in the instant cases has taken correct view of the matter. Hence, the revisions are dismissed. It is, however, left open to the defendants to file applications for striking of the pleadings or parties, under the relevant provisions of law, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 27-07-2010. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/O) KO/GJ* [1] 2003 (3) ALD 253 [2] AIR 1921 Sind. 166 [3] AIR 1921 Calcutta 277