Rapaka Nagaraju v. Sudha High School
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-29. Rapaka Nagaraju v. Sudha High School. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1261 OF 2020 Petition Under Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 16-1'l-2020 in l. A. No. 556 ol 2020 in l. A. No. 474o1 2020 in O. S. No. 416 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Jangaon District. Between: Rapaka Nagaraju, S/o. Sudhakar, Aged about 41 years, Occ Business, R/o. Flat No. 304, Vaishnav Grand Apts. , Lane Opposite to lClOl Bank, [\/ain Road, Shridi Sai Nagar, Manikonda, Hyderabad-8g. Presently residing at C/o. Pajjuri Jayahari, S/o. lt4urali Manohar, Aged 62 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No 3-8-87, Vegetable Market Road, Jangaon .. PETITIONER/ Defendant No. 1 AND 1. Sudha High School, (Sudha Techno School), Dardepally Road, Sponsored by Sudha Educational and Cultural Society, bearing Regd No.
788/2013, Rep. by its Secretary, Rapaka Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Sudhakar, Aged about 43 years, Occ Secretary-cum Correspondent of Sudha High School, R/o. Palakurthy Village and lVandal, Jangaon District. .. Respondent / Plaintiff 2. Rapaka Somu, Sio. Late lVladhu, Aged about 21 yearc, Occ Student, R/o. H No 5-'16, Palakurthy Village and lt/andal, Jangaon District. (Petitioner No. 2 is not necessary party). ... RESPONDENTS/ Defendants lA NO: 'f OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in l. A. No. 556 of 2020 in lA No. 474 of 2020 in OS No. 416 of 2020 on the file of the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Jangaon District, pending disposal of the above C. R. P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. RAMA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent NO. 1 : SRI J. KANAKAIAH The Court made the following: ORDER P l\ill,J t'RP \. 126lOl.
)0)0 J HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1261 of 2O2O ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Y. Rama Rao learned counsel lor petitioner/ del'endant No. 1, and Sri J. Kanakaiah learned counsel for respondent No. I /plaintiff. 2. Parties are referred to as arraved in the suit. 3. Plaintiff filed O. S. No. 4l6 of 2O2O on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon praying to grant decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, servants, associates, agents, relatives etc from entering into or interfering in peaceful running of school activity in the school premises described more fully in the schedule appended to the suit plaint (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property). According to plaintilf, Sudha Educational and Cultural Society was lormed and registered in the year 2013 (Reg. No. 788/2013). The society established Sudha High School.
In the year 2014 he has acquired suit schedule property on 5 (five) years lease to establish the school in the premises. Lease deed was executed on 26. S. 2OlS by the owner of the property Sri Rapaka Sudhakar. It is his case that lease was subsequently extended. Initially school was established to impart education upto 7th class, subsequently permission is granted to impart education upto lOth class. The administration of the school is taken care of by Sri Rapaka Vijaya Kumar, Correspondent of the school and General Secretary of the society. Plaintiff contents that clefendants are total strangers, have no right or interest in the management of the plaintiff school. CRP No. l26l OF 2020 + Plaintiff alleges that defendants became envious of the success of the school, started meddling with day to day running of the school, creating all sorts of nuisance, became violent, using abusive language in electronic media, illegally trespassed into the school premises by use of force. 4.
Defendant No. 1 filed I. A. No. 556 of 2O2O under Order VII Rule 1 1 of CPC read with Sections 19 and 23 of Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. It is averred that the school has no specific entity; that Rapaka Vijay Kumar is not the Secretary of the Society; that he was not authorized by the society to represent the society; that there is no separate body for the school to conduct day to day business; that the school is run by the society in which he is a member; that he is the co-owner of the school and absolute owner of the building. Therefore, on any dispute concerning the society governed by the 2001 Act, or on the dispute among the members of the society, the remedy is under Section 19 and Section 23 of the Act and suit is not maintainable. 5. The said plea of defendants was opposed by the plaintiff. By order against which this revision is filed, the trial Court dismissed LA. No. 556 of 2020.
The trial Court observed that first defendant is not a member of the society and as per the amendments notified on 27,8. 2019 reflects Mr Rapaka Vijay Kumar as General Secretary of the society. 6. The learned counsel for the first defendant reiterated the submissions made before the trial Court' He would submit that on a plain reading of the averments in the plaint would disclose that there is an inter se dispute among the members of the ( RP No l26l ()F 2020 ) society and on issues concerning the society and on inter se disputes among the members, the suit is barred by Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC and therefore, suit ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone. 7 . Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff would submit that plaint cannot be rejected by referring to averments in a written statement or in the affidavit filed in support of interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CpC.
As per Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, plaint can be rejected only il avermenrs in the plaint ex point out that facie it is barred by any law. 8. Before appreciating the respective contentions, it is appropriate to note the provision in Order VII Rule 1 1t of CpC, particularly sub-rule (d). This rule enables rejection of suit at the threshold if it is barred by law. To reject a suit, it should appear from the statement in the plaint that it is barred by law so that frivolous litigation need not be kept pending when it is apparent from the reading of the plaint that suit is not maintainable. If a special Act dealing with a specific issue excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and vests power of adjudication in a Tribunal, specially formed for the purpose, the aggrieved party has to avail the legal remedy before that Tribunal and the Civil Court cannot adjudicate such dispute. However, the scrutiny to reject a plaint I ' It lr ll ReJection ofptaint.
The ptarnt shall be rejecred in the following cases: (a)where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed rs underva. lued, and the pri. intifl, or, being lequ'. ed by the Court to correct the valuation wlthin a time to be lixed by the Couri, faits to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly varued, but the pralnt is returned upon paper insufficientry stanped, and the plaintiff, on bein-g required by rhe Court to supply the requi"it" within a time to be llxed by the Court, fails to do so; (rt) wheri ihe suit appears "tu. p-p. p"i from ihe statemelt in the plaint to be bared by any law; 1[(e) where it is nor filed in dupircatc;] 2[(0 where the plaintiff faiis to compty with the pro'xsions of rule g:l 3lprovided rhat r_\e time fired ty Li. r. Cur. , for the correction ofthe varuation r," supplying of the requisite stamp,paper shall not be extenrrerl unless the cou't, for reasons !
o be recorded, is satisfied that rhe plalnaiff was preventccr by a,v cuu\c olirn exceplro ol n,rrJre lrom,^urrc(ring rhc valuarron o| supplyrng lhe.. qri=,t. ,,-np ]rrp",. as the case may be, withrn the time lL\Ed by Lhe coLrft a,,a tnat. et,rsoito extend such time would callse glave injustice to the plaintill l CRP No. l26l Ol- 2020 at the threshold must be strict and in a narrow compass. The trial Court ought to satisfy that reading of plaint averments would lead to irresistible conclusion that cause stood barred bv law and no relief can be granted. 9. On the scope of consideration of an application filed to reject a suit by taking resort to Order VII Rule 1 1 of CPC, I am guided by the following enunciation of law. 9. 1. In Saleem Bhai and others Vs State of Maharastra2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held "9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule I I CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for decjding an application thereunder are the avcrments in Lhe plaint.
The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule I I CPC at any stage of the suit before registering the plaint or after -rssuing summons to the defendant at any time before thc conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (@ of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas raken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects. ' 9. 2. In Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs. Hede and Company3 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "25.......... It is well settled thdt uhether a. pla.
int d{scloses q. cq. use of action is essentlaltg a questlon of Ja. ct, but whether lt d. oes or does not must be found out lron readlng the plalnt ltsel-f. For the sald. purpose the aoerments made ln the pld. l,. t ln thelr entirety must be held. to be cortect, fhe test ls ahether the a,erments made ln the plalnt, tJ to. ken to be cortect ln thelr entlretg, q. decree would. be pqssed, The aoerments mdd. e in the pldlnt os a whole hdue to be see^ to flnd. out whethet cld'l. se (d) oJ Rule 77 oJ Otdel 7 is applicdble. It ls not permlssible to cull out d sentence or a po,ss. ,. ge q,nd to read it out ol the context in isolqtlon, Although lt is the substance and not meretg the Jorn thdt ha. s to be looked l^to, the pleddlng ha. s to be construed. cs it stdnds uithout additlon ot subtrdctlon of @ords or change of lts s. pparent grammatlcql sense.
As obseryed earlier, the language of clause (d) is quite clcar buL if any authority is required, one may uscfully refer to the judgments of this Court in Liverpool & London S. P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M. V. Sea Success Il(2004) 9 SCC 5l2l and Popat and Kotecha Propcrty v. State Bank of India StaffAssn. [(2005) 7 SCC 5i0]. Ie mphasis supplied] 2003) l scc s57 2007) 5 SCC 614 PAR J ct? P No t26t ot. 2a20 9. 3, In p. V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. p. Neeradha Reddy and others4, thc Hon,ble Supreme Court held: "5 Rejection of lhe olaint unrlcr Orcler Z Rule I I ofCpC is a drasLic porver r:onferred in rhc court to termlnate a civil action at the threshold. condirions preccdent The Lo the exercise <. ,f power Rule 11, rherefore, are srringenL and have t".. , . o. r"i"t.. ,itf ""a*'ii. a". 'i a"era"'ti"'Ue so by Courr. It is rhe averments rhe rn rhe plaint tnut nr". ii O. iJ u'"" *r,oi" find our wherher rr discloses a cause of ,o action ;. ;t ,h. ; ;; ! iit" i" t^..
"a under any law, At the stage of exercise of po*"; ,;;;;'6;a.. iirr" r r, ,r,. stand of rhe defendants 'rri in the writren ,ie apitication rejection of the plaint for is wholly i--",. ri"i. 'ii'i" "*,. _. nl-o. o"r] ii,iJ'",1I#. "," plainr ex facre do not ," ,n. disclose a cause. of acrion .. rjirg',nereof suit appears to be barred under the any law the plaint can ". -ir'. be rejected. In other situations, the claims all wilt have to u" . a:ialuiJ'_? " l"ir*. . f ,rr" 10. Section 1 9s of the Act 200 1 stipulates who can represent the society in any legal action. Section 236 deals with resolution of dispute among the committee members or members of the society. It vests discretion in a member to avail remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or by filing Original Application before civil Court. 11. Having regard to plain language employed in Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CpC, the Court can not go beyond the pleadings in the plaint.
To attract Section 23, assuming that it creates absolute bar to file a suit in a civil Court, the plaint averments should make out a case to come to such conclusion and not by process of reasoning or by looking into counter pleadings of the defendants. On going through the plaint pleadings, it is seen that the pleadings do not point out dispute inter se the members of the committee of o 20 ls tjr aLT t4 sc = (20t5) 8 scc 33 t S. 19. (11. The Commrttee or anv ofrrcer of the society authorized in defend any actron or this behalt by its byelaws, olher teqat oroceed,ng rnay bring or touchrng;r. """"r","s or any rrghl or c,arn ot namer2iAnv "";. or;;;y tre ::J:Iil1,i7f:". ::iro? "::"? X,l:,. sna,, " or removal from ". i;; no, abate or be offrce ";;d"i;[";ed,ns ol a-nv member oi ii";;;;";. ; ""' or ,n" . *,",v it"i ,lu "orrun"ururi t' s'23 rn lh" event of any dispute arising among the committee or the any matter retatrng to members of the society, the affars ol the socety..
any rn respecr of ,". u", rne . rovisions of the Arbnratron oiitu ,"",i,, . ", ,r""""0 wrth the d,sptrte Jnder and Concrrarro; ncr. rsso-oi c0ncer-ed a^d lhe sard mai-i. J rfrrip,,"roon court sha,,after necessary,nquiry ,n lhe Drstict Coun pass such b. der as,t mly Oeem frt PNR.. ] CRP No. l26l OF 2020 the society or members and the society. Plaintiff asserts that defendants are total strangers to the plaintiff. This assertion has to be tested in the trial. On a plain reading of plaint averments, it cannot be said, ex that the suit is barred by 1aw to reject the facie, plaint at the threshold. The suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold based on the plea raised by the 1st defendant in his written statement and I or in the application by him liled under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in the counter-affidavit opposing interlocutory application filed by plaintiff to grant interim injunction.
Whether, the averments made in the plaint are true and are supported by evidence that may be brought on record, can be gone into when trial is conducted in the suit. 12. In the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that there was no error committed by trial Court in exercising its discretion to reject prayer of petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits and it is open to l"t defendant to raise al1 pleas as available to him in law in the suit. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. Sd/-N. CHANDRASEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REG RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To 1. The Additional Junror Civil Judge Jangaon, Jangaon District. 2. 10 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia lvlinistry of law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. . 1. Tl.
re Secretary Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings Hyderabad 5. One CC to SRI Y. RAMA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI J. KANAKAIAH, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies . -\- \ HIGH COURT PNRJ DATED:2911212020 He s TA ( LR Copy to be marked c o 11 JAil 2021 * * ORDER CRP. No. 1261 of 2020 DISMISSINC THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS n\ +
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.