Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint -The petitioner filed I.A.No.2009/2008 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint mainly on three grounds, namely, (i) that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed; (ii) that the defendant was not properly described, thereby no cause arose in respect of the defendant as shown in the plaint and (iii) that the copyright of the plaintiff was not extended and the same was not in force when the suit was filed. The Court below dismissed the said application. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

C.R.P.No.4666 of 2011

18-1-2012

M/s. Global Impex Represented by its ProprietorRajesh Mandoth, Mysore,Karnataka

M/s. Greenply Industries Ltd.,Represented by its G.P.A. Holder Dr. Rama
Krishna, Hyderabad.

 Counsel for petitioner : Sri N. Subba Rao

 Counsel for respondent : --

ORDER:
        This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 15-7-2011 in
I.A.No.2009/2008 in O.S.No.55/2008 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge-
Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
        The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.55/2008 filed by the respondent,
alleging infringement of copyright.  The petitioner filed I.A.No.2009/2008 under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the
plaint mainly on three grounds, namely, (i) that no part of cause of action had
arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed; (ii)
that the defendant was not properly described, thereby no cause arose in respect
of the defendant as shown in the plaint and (iii) that the copyright of the
plaintiff was not extended and the same was not in force when the suit was
filed.  The Court below dismissed the said application.  Hence, the petitioner
filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
        At the hearing, Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner
strenuously contended that as the petitioner does not have any branches within
the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Court, no cause of action had arisen for filing
the suit in the Court at Hyderabad and that therefore the plaint ought to have
been rejected.  The learned counsel further stated that the cause title, as
originally shown in the pliant, wrongly described the defendant and that the
respondent failed to show that its copyright was in force at the time of filing
of the suit.
        I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
        Order VII Rule 11 of the Code envisaged rejection of plaint on any of the
grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) thereof.  As regards the first ground of
the petitioner that the plaint is liable to be rejected under clause (a) where
it does not disclose cause of action, it is not the pleaded case of the
petitioner that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action.  It has only
pleaded that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction
of the Hyderabad Court.  In my opinion, the issue of the plaint not disclosing
the cause of action is different and distinct from the issue relating to cause
of action not arising within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is
instituted.  While in the former case, the plaint is liable to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code, in the latter case, it being a question of
fact to be culled out from the pleadings and evidence to be adduced by the
parties, the same needs to be adjudicated in the main suit.  As such, the plaint
cannot be rejected at this stage.
        As regards the plea of the petitioner that the defendant was not properly
described in the cause title, even according to the petitioner's counsel the
cause title was subsequently amended.  At any rate, improper description of the
defendant does not constitute a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code.
        With respect to the plea of the petitioner that the copyright of the
plaintiff was not in force at the time of filing of the suit, this again is a
question which requires to be decided in the suit itself and the same is not
comprehended by any of the limbs of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code.
        For the above mentioned reasons, I am of the opinion that the Court below
has not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court
in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.  The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
         As a sequel, CRP M.P.No.6633/2011 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________  
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 18-1-2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515