authorization said to have been given to one, Smt. Sailaja to file the suit on behalf of the 1st respondent is not valid- The specific prayer made by the petitioner in the I.A., is to "dismiss the suit as not maintainable". The C.P.C does not provide for such a course. In case the defendant in a suit feels that the suit is not maintainable, he can certainly file an application under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint. If a case is made out, as provided for, under the clauses thereof, the plaint can certainly be rejected. Filing of an application under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to dismiss the suit is totally impermissible. When a specific provision deals with the rejection of plaint, general provision like, Section 151 C.P.C., cannot be pressed into service. Further, the ground relied upon by the petitioner for dismissal of the suit is the alleged defect in the authorization. Assuming that there is any defect in the authorization, it cannot entail in dismissal of the suit or rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff can be given an opportunity to rectify the defect. In the instant case, the trial Court has taken the view that there is valid authorization through Ex.A-2. Viewed from any angle, the application filed by the petitioner cannot be sustained. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner has any other grounds that fit into Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., it shall be open to him to file an application. The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P. shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY        

C.R.P. No.169 of 2013

24-01-2013

S.T. Ranganathan      

M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd., & others

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri  V. Shiv Shankar

Counsel for respondents   :

<Gist:

>Head Note:

ORDER:

       
The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.194 of 2009 in the Court of
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, against the petitioner (defendant No.4)
and respondents 2 to 6, for recovery of certain amount covered by a chit
transaction.  The petitioner filed written-statement and the trial of the suit
is in progress.  PW-1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked.  At that
stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.313 of 2012 under Section 151 C.P.C., with a
prayer to dismiss the suit as not maintainable.  The reason mentioned by him is
that the authorization said to have been given to one, Smt. Sailaja to file the
suit  on behalf of the 1st respondent is not valid, and thereby the suit was not
validly instituted.  The 1st respondent opposed the same by filing a counter.
The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 27-11-2012.  Hence, this
revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
1st respondent is a Company, the trial Court ought to have verified whether the
person, who instituted the suit, has valid authority.
He contends that since the objection raised by the petitioner goes to the root
of the matter, it ought to have been examined in detail by the trial Court.
The suit was instituted in the year 2009.  Except the petitioner herein, rest of
the defendants in the suit were set ex parte.  The evidence on behalf of the 1st
respondent appears to have been concluded and that the petitioner is not
forthcoming to adduce his evidence.  Ex.A-2 is the authorization on the basis of
which, the suit
was instituted.

The specific prayer made by the petitioner in the I.A., is to "dismiss the suit
as not maintainable".  The C.P.C does not provide for such a course.  In case
the defendant in a suit feels that the suit is not maintainable, he can
certainly file an application under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., for rejection
of the plaint.  If a case is made out, as provided for, under the clauses
thereof, the plaint can certainly be rejected.  Filing of an application under
Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to dismiss the suit is totally impermissible.
When a specific provision deals with the rejection of plaint, general provision
like, Section 151 C.P.C., cannot be pressed into service.

Further, the ground relied upon by the petitioner for dismissal of the suit is
the alleged defect in the authorization.  Assuming that there is any defect in
the authorization, it cannot entail in dismissal of the suit or rejection of the
plaint.  The plaintiff can be given an opportunity to rectify the defect.  In
the instant case, the trial Court has taken the view that there is valid
authorization through Ex.A-2.  Viewed from any angle, the application filed by
the petitioner cannot be sustained.

The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed.  It is, however, made clear that in case
the petitioner has any other grounds that fit into Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C.,
it shall be open to him to file an application.

 The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P. shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.    
Dt.24-01-2013.

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.

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

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.