ORDER : B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. The petitioner - plaintiff filed a suit in S.R. No.9 of 2025 on 06.01.2025 before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Sathupally, seeking to direct the respondents - defendants to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) with an interest of 24% per annum to the petitioner from the date of suit till the date of realization. 2. Inter alia, in the suit, it was pleaded by the petitioner that he has succeeded to the suit schedule property - Mango Garden (for short ‘property’) from his parents. The property was protected by the standard iron gates. There were two (2) iron gates fixed by the petitioner. The accused persons by name Mr. Gaddam Narsimha S/o. Gaddam Veladri @ Yadadri and others entered in to the property of the petitioner by removing iron gates and stolen them on the instigation of some unknown persons. 2.1 The petitioner has made a complaint to the SHO, Sathupally Rural Police Station, stating that the accused persons have attacked him on 14.08.2019, and he also categorically expressed the law position as per the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) about the liability of accused persons. However, the Police did not take any action. Taking undue advantage of the same, the accused persons again committed offences by removing gates, as such, the petitioner has lodged another complaint on 10.03.2022, by referring to earlier complaints before SHO, Sathupally Rural Police Station, and also forwarded the same to the concerned Commissioner of Police and Circle Inspector. The Sathupally Rural Police Station has simply registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2022 against four (4) accused persons only. Hence, the petitioner has addressed letters to respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 - the Station House Officer (SHO), Sathupally Police Station, on 06.07.2022 for taking action against the accused and for impleading Mr. Inampudi George and his four (4) sons in the above crime, but Police neither took any action against the accused nor impleaded the above persons. 2.2 On 07.10.2023, the petitioner has given complaint to SHO, Sathupally Rural Police Station, explaining about the additional complaint in Crime No.95 of 2022 regarding offence committed by other accused persons and for recovering the stolen property of the petitioner. 2.2 On 07.10.2023, the petitioner has given complaint to SHO, Sathupally Rural Police Station, explaining about the additional complaint in Crime No.95 of 2022 regarding offence committed by other accused persons and for recovering the stolen property of the petitioner. On 19.10.2023, petitioner issued notice to the Commissioner of Police, Sathupally, for making enquiry about Crime No.95 of 2022 against accused persons and for summoning the official sub-ordinates. Several reminders were also given by the petitioner to the Police. On 03.04.2024, petitioner has addressed a letter to the concerned Commissioner of Police for taking action against the Police sub-ordinates, but no action was taken. 2.3 The petitioner has also sent letters and reminders to respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 to look into the seriousness of the theft case. But no action was initiated. In Form No.52 intentionally the description of petitioner - plaintiff was shown as Mr. Gaddam Sai Krishna W/o. Yadadri, instead of son of Mr. Yadadri. It was deliberate act on the part of the then Circle Inspector (CI) of Police, Mr. Mohan Babu, to humiliate the petitioner. Respondents deserve punishment as they have not taken any action against the then CI of Police, Mr. Mohan Babu. The CI of Police has intentionally damaged the case of the petitioner for some personal benefits and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against A1 and A6, by removing the names of A2 to A5. The deletion of names of accused is intentional. Police have wrongly referred the case as Crime No.382 of 2021 instead of Crime No.95 of 2022 and misguided the Court, and Form - 62 was issued by the learned Magistrate. By letter dated 01.02.2024, the petitioner requested respondent No.3 - defendant No.3 to take stringent action against the then SHO, CI and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sathupally. However, no action was taken. 3. Heard Mr. P. B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Ms. A.V.S. Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff, and perused the material available on record. 4. As the impugned order was passed even before the suit was numbered, notice to the respondents is not required and accordingly the same is dispensed with. 5. The trial Court rejected the plaint by recording the following reasons: “Perused the record. A.V.S. Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff, and perused the material available on record. 4. As the impugned order was passed even before the suit was numbered, notice to the respondents is not required and accordingly the same is dispensed with. 5. The trial Court rejected the plaint by recording the following reasons: “Perused the record. As per the contents of un-registered plaint, it is noticed that when several times thefts occurred in the mango garden of the plaintiff, he made several complaints and got sent letters to the S.H.O P.S. Sathupally/defendant No.2, Assistant commissioner of police, Sathupally/ defendant No.3, who in-turn simply registered cases under irrelevant sections and dragged on the matter without filing charge sheets and at last filed charge sheet by deleting the main accused and in the form No.52, abusive language was used against the plaintiff. Similarly, even after making several complaints and representations to the then Superintendent of police, Khammam/ defendant No.1, he also failed to enquire into the matter and take any action against his subordinates, due to which subsequent thefts occurred in his property and due to non-action of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 within time, the plaintiff suffered lot of physical and mental agony and therefore the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay damages to a tune of Rs.1 crore, so that the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for damages against the official defendant Nos.1 to 3. By the aforesaid averments of plaint, it is made crystal clear that, for the acts done by the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 while discharging their official duties, the plaintiff said to be sustained heavy loss and damage and therefore the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay damages to a tune of Rs.1 crore to him. It is a settled law that, the Government servants/police officials are not made as responsible for the acts done by them while discharging their official duties in good faith and a suit for payment of damages personally by such public servants in a civil court is not maintainable when there is an alternative remedy for claiming damages against the state under Vicarious Liability in the Hon’ble High Court is available.” 6. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C reads as under: “The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; …. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C reads as under: “The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; …. (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: ….” 7. The reasons of the trial Court for rejecting the plaint are erroneous and unsustainable. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, the trial Court did not refer to any provision of law which says that the Government servants-police officials cannot be made responsible for the acts done by them while discharging their official duties. Whether the public servants or officials acted in good faith or not is a question of fact and the same has to be decided in a suit by framing appropriate issue. So far as vicarious liability is concerned, it is for the petitioner to decide whether to make the State-employer as a party or not. It is too premature for the trial Court to say that the Government officials/Police have acted in good faith and that they are not personally liable to pay damages and only State is liable. In any case on the principle of vicarious liability a plaint cannot be rejected unless supported by any statutory provision or judicial precedent in that regard. Moreover, the petitioner being ‘dominus litus’ is the best person to choose and decide which remedy is the appropriate. A plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternate remedy in the High Court. There is no judicial precedent cited by the trial Court to hold that claim of damages against Police officials can be made only before the High Court in writ jurisdiction and not before Civil Court. A suit for damages is a common law remedy which can be filed when legal injury is caused to the plaintiff by the defendants. It may be due to breach of contract or due to inaction or abuse of power by the Government officials etc. 8. As seen from the averments in the plaint, grievance of the petitioner - plaintiff is that the respondent police in derogation of their official duties did not take any action against the accused-culprits who damaged mango trees along with crop in the property and non-action of the respondents-defendants has caused lot of physical and mental agony to the petitioner. 9. As seen from the averments in the plaint, grievance of the petitioner - plaintiff is that the respondent police in derogation of their official duties did not take any action against the accused-culprits who damaged mango trees along with crop in the property and non-action of the respondents-defendants has caused lot of physical and mental agony to the petitioner. 9. It is surprising to note that further reason for rejection of the plaint is that there is no cause of action to file the suit. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India , [ (2006) 6 SCC 207 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the cause of action has held as under: “…. 9. By “cause of action” it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, a bundle of facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. (See Bloom Dekor Lid. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai , [ (1994) 6 SCC 322 ] .) 10. In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908) “cause of action” means every fact, which it is necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment. (See Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, (1998) 6 SCC 514 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1471 11. It is settled law that “cause of action” consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. [See South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd. , [ (1996) 3 SCC 443 ] ….. 14. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. [See South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd. , [ (1996) 3 SCC 443 ] ….. 14. The expression “cause of action” is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person (see Black's Law Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary a “cause of action” is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In Words and Phrases (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase “cause of action” in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf. (See Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 215.) 15. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) it has been stated as follows: “ ‘Cause of action’ has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. ‘Cause of action’ has also been taken to mean that a particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject-matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action.” ….” 10. In continuance of the pleadings set out in paragraph Nos.1 to 16, the petitioner - plaintiff in the “cause of action” paragraph has spelt out reasons constituting cause of action. Thus, impugned order holding that there is no cause of action is contrary to the pleadings and is unsustainable. No doubt the suit filed by the petitioner is unusual. In continuance of the pleadings set out in paragraph Nos.1 to 16, the petitioner - plaintiff in the “cause of action” paragraph has spelt out reasons constituting cause of action. Thus, impugned order holding that there is no cause of action is contrary to the pleadings and is unsustainable. No doubt the suit filed by the petitioner is unusual. However, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold unless there is strong case to hold that plaint does not disclose cause of action and that it is barred by law. With the changing contours of administration, public awareness and empowerment, inefficiency at various levels of administration and absence of effective grievance redressal mechanism, there cannot be any settled law that can be laid down for all times to come. Law cannot be static; it changes from time to time depending upon the changes in the society and modern thinking. The Court while entertaining a suit cannot have pre-set notion that suit is not maintainable. The Courts have to march in tune with the changing times and cannot have conservative approach as in the instant case. 11. As pointed out above, the trial Court has not mentioned any provision of law in the impugned order as to how the instant suit is barred. So far as, cause of action is concerned, such point normally has to be decided after appearance of respondents - defendants. The impugned order is illegal and unsustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2025. The trial Court is directed to register the suit and issue summons to the respondents-defendants. The defendants are at liberty to avail all remedies available under CPC including remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this civil revision petition stand closed.