CRP/5562/2011 of Smt.Bathini Rajeshwari Vs Smt.Kuadari Hamma on 30 December 2011

O R D E R:

The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of theConstitution of India, is directed against the docket order, dated30.11.2011, in S.R.No.4522 of 2011 on the file of the Principal JuniorCivil Judge, Warangal in ordering notice to the respondents in order todecide the maintainability of the document vide Doct.No.1156, dated18.04.1992 for agreement of sale.

2. Heard.

3. The plaint was filed for specific performance of agreement ofsale. If the pleadings do not attract Article 54 of the Limitation Act,1963 (for short, ‘the Act’), the plaint has to be rejected. Therefore, thequestion of issuing notice to the respondents/defendants at that stagedoes not arise. If the suit is not barred by Article 54 of the Act, then theplaint has to be numbered. At subsequent stage, the defendants maycome forward with an application to reject the plaint if there are anygrounds for rejection of plaint as contemplated under Order VII Rule11 C.P.C. Therefore, issuing notice to the respondents/defendantsbefore numbering the plaint is not contemplated under the Act. So, itis for the Court to decide to number the plaint basing on theallegations made in the plaint. This aspect of the case has not beendecided by the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order is set asideand the matter is remanded to the trial Court to decide whether theallegations made in the plaint are barred by limitation under Article 54of the Act or not and take appropriate decision in accordance withlaw.

4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shallbe no order as to costs.

______________________

30[th] December, 2011AMD

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5562 of 2011

AMD

Date:30.12.2011