Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code = mere absence of detailed particulars relating to the nature of the properties cannot be treated as the plaint not disclosing cause of action. If the plaintiff lays a foundation relating to his title, he can always substantiate the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Such an exercise will be undertaken only during the trial. As rejection of the plaint at the very inception leads to drastic result of non-suiting the plaintiff, Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code needs to be strictly construed. Except in cases where it fails to disclose any cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected under clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII.

published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydispfree.aspx?filename=8801
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

C.R.P.No.4582 of 2011

30-1-2012

R. Raghunatha Reddy and another

R. Ramakrishna Reddy

Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy

Counsel for respondent : Sri S.V. Bhatt

?CASES REFERRED:    
1998 AIR SCW 237  

ORDER:
        This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 19-8-2011 in
I.A.No.52/2011 in O.S.No.5/2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District
Judge, Chittoor.
        The petitioners are defendants in the above noted suit filed by the
respondent for declaration of title and permanent injunction.  The petitioners
filed I.A.No.52/2011 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") seeking rejection of the plaint on
the ground that the same does not disclose cause of action.  The lower Court
rejected the said application.  Hence, the petitioners filed the present Civil
Revision Petition.
        At the hearing, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that in the plaint, the petitioners have not disclosed
which are ancestral properties and which are self-acquired properties and that
in the absence of such details, the plaint has not satisfied the requirements of
Order VII Rule 1(e) and also sub-rule 11(a) thereof.  In support of his
submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal1.
        Order VII Rule 1 of the Code prescribes the particulars to be contained in
a plaint.  These particulars include the facts constituting cause of action and
when it arose.  Under Rule 11 of Order VII, the plaint shall be rejected, inter
alia, where it does not disclose a cause of action.  In the present case, a
perusal of the plaint shows that the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the
plaint schedule properties are ancestral as well as self-acquired properties.
It is also averred that the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LR),
Madanapalle, by his order dated 16-3-1976 declared the plaint schedule
properties and other properties as the respondent's ancestral and self-acquired
ones.  Paragraph-4 of the plaint also contains the details of certain properties
and the extents and refers to a registered exchange deed dated
21-6-1985. In paragraph-7, it is stated that on 5-11-2011, 6-1-2011 and 23-1-
2011, the petitioners/defendants along with their men repeatedly trespassed into
the plaint schedule items 1 to 3 and objected the respondent/plaintiff and his
coolies when they were spraying insecticides in the mango garden.  Accordingly,
in paragraph-8 of the plaint, the respondent pleaded that on the above mentioned
details and also on the date when legal notice was issued on 24-1-2011, the
cause of action arose.
        In order to attract the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code for
rejection of the plaint, the defendants shall satisfy the Court that the plaint
does not disclose cause of action at all.  In the present case, the
respondent/plaintiff sought for both declaration of title and perpetual
injunction.  Even though paragraph-8 of the plaint relating to cause of action
has not included the averment relating to title, the said paragraph contains
sufficient pleadings in respect of permanent injunction.
As rightly submitted by Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent, to
know whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, the same needs to be
read as a whole.  As noted above, the respondent referred to his title in more
than one paragraph.  He has also claimed to have filed a certified copy of order
of the Land Reforms Tribunal relating to ancestral as well as the self-acquired
properties.  In my opinion,
mere absence of detailed particulars relating to the nature of the properties cannot be treated as the plaint not disclosing cause of action.  
If the plaintiff lays a foundation relating to his title, he can always substantiate the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence.  
Such an 
exercise will be undertaken only during the trial.  As rejection of the plaint at the very inception leads to drastic result of non-suiting the plaintiff, Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code needs to be strictly construed.  
Except in cases
where it fails to disclose any cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected under clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII.
As noted above, the plaint
sufficiently discloses cause of action and the averments raise triable issues.
The plaint therefore cannot be rejected without the suit being tried.  The
Judgment of the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Limited (1-supra) turned on its own
facts and therefore the same is of no help to the petitioners.
        For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
        As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.6506/2011 is disposed of as infructuous.
_________________________  
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 30-1-2012

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.

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.