THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2503 & 2520 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are connected with each other and parties are common. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed O.S.No.347 of 2004 in the Court of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to 8 for the relief of declaration of title and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The plea of respondent Nos.1 to 5 (for short ‘the respondents’) was that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and taking advantage of the permission accorded to him, the petitioner has occupied the land and constructed a building. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. He pleaded title in himself on the strength of a registered sale deed. The respondents, in turn, filed a rejoinder stating that the petitioner has encroached and trespassed into the land. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioner filed I.A.No.688 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to amend the written statement. He intended to incorporate the paragraph, taking objection as to the very jurisdiction of the civil Court. According to him, the suit on the basis of the plaint allegations was triable only by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’). I.A.No.689 of 2007 was filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint. These two revisions are filed stating that though the applications were filed way back in the year 2007, the trial Court was proceeding with the recording of evidence and the applications were not at all dealt with. Heard Ms.N.Sasikala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.R.Harsha, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is not aggrieved by any specific order passed by the trial Court. His grievance is about the delay in disposal of the applications, even while the trial is in progress. The suit is of the year 2004. A perusal of the record furnished by the parties discloses that the suit has undergone umpteen number of adjournments on one pretext or the other. Despite the same, the trial Court ought to have considered the applications and passed orders thereon before it proceeded further. Be that as it may, I.A.No.689 of 2007 filed by the petitioner is to reject the plaint. The only reason pleaded therefor is that the case is triable by the Special Court. The Act does not, by itself, exclude the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Though it may be permissible for an individual either to choose a civil Court or a Special Court to seek redressal, the mere fact that he has instituted the suit in a civil Court does not warrant rejection of the plaint. Therefore, there is no necessity for the trial Court to examine I.A.No.689 of 2007 and it shall stand dismissed. I.A.No.688 of 2007 is filed with a prayer to amend the written statement. The proposed amendment is only for incorporation of a paragraph, touching upon the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Even that is referable to the provisions of the Act. This being a pure question of law, it can be permitted to be urged without the necessity of recording any further evidence on this aspect. Therefore C.R.P.No.2503 of 2010 is dismissed. C.R.P.No.2520 of 2010 is allowed permitting the petitioner to amend the written statement incorporating the plea, touching on the jurisdiction of the trial Court. It is directed that the trial Court shall frame an issue on the basis of the said amendment, but it shall not be necessary for it to record any evidence on that issue. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.07.2010 Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl