Nallamothu Satyanarayana vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and Another

P.S. Narayana, J.—This Appeal is filed as against an order rejecting the plaint in C.F.R.No.2557/87 in unnumbered suit on the file of District Judge, Guntur. The suit was rejected mainly on the ground of limitation. The appellant aggrieved by the said order had preferred the present Appeal.

The facts in brief are that the appellant had instituted the suit u/s 78 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, Act XVII of 66, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur made in O.A. No. 122/84 u/s 77 of the said Act. The order was made by the Deputy Commissioner on 11-9-1985 and the suit was filed on 22-4-1987 and inasmuch as the suit was filed beyond limitation, the suit was held to be barred by time.

Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao, the learned counsel representing Sri G.Krishna Murthy, for appellants and G.P. for appeals for respondents.

The point for consideration is whether the impugned order of rejection of plaint is sustainable or liable to be set aside ?

The court below had gone into several details for arriving at the conclusion that the suit is barred by time. It is needless to mention that always necessarily the question of limitation need not be a pure question of law and depending upon circumstances, it may be a question of fact and question of law also. In the pleading, in the cause of action it had been specifically stated that the copy of the order was served on the appellant on 29-4-1986 and hence the suit filed on 22-4-1987 was within limitation. All the other aspects, viz., how the period of limitation has to be reckoned with in view of the provisions of Sections 77 and 78 of the Act, read with the Rules, are all matters to be decided after the respondents/defendants entering appearance and raising such pleas by way of pleading. While deciding the question of rejection of plaint at the threshold, the Court is expected look into the allegations made in the plant and not of the probable defences, which may be raised by the opposite party ultimately. It is needless to mention that after the suit is numbered, the respondents/defendants are at liberty to raise all the questions including the question of limitation.

In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the plaint at the threshold cannot be sustained and accordingly the impugned order dated 31-8-1987 made in C.F.R.No.2557/87 is hereby set aside and the court below is directed to number the suit if it is otherwise in order and proceed further in accordance with law. However, since the impugned order was made at the threshold, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.