Or.7 Rule 11 C.P.C. – Rejection of plaint as the cause of action was ceased to exists – mother and son filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the her husband etc., – in divorce proceedings the high court order to pay Rs.4 lakhs to the mother and in turn she has to deliver the possession of plaint schedule properties – mother complied the high court order after receiving 4 lakhs from her husband and filed an application to delete her name in the suit – once her name was deleted , the defendant filed an application under Or.7 Rule 11 C.P.C. as there is no cause of action remains – Trial court dismissed the application but High court allowed the same – Apex court held that the high court correctly allowed the rejection petition as the son alone can not maintain any cause of action against his father etc., and dismissed the appeal =
whereby the application filed by the respondent herein
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the
Code’) was allowed and the plaint was rejected. The High Court set aside
the order passed by the Trial Court refusing such prayer.=
“11. Rejection of plaint
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:–
a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a
time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is
written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper
within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d)where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law:
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply sub-rule (2) of rule 9;
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the
valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be
extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied
that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional
nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court
and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to
the plaintiff.”
12. After perusing the order passed by the High Court and the reasoning
given therein, it appears to us that the High Court has correctly perused
the plaint in its entirety and after deletion of the name of plaintiff No.1
from the said Title Suit, held that the plaint discloses no cause of action
after taking into account the fact that the very purpose of the suit has
become infructuous in view of the order passed by the High Court to hand
over the possession of the rooms in question. Therefore, the foundation of
the suit was not subsisting after the handing over of possession to the
defendant by plaintiff No.1 in terms of the order. Hence, in these
circumstances, the High Court held that the plaint discloses no cause of
action.
13. Now, it is necessary for us to find out whether the plaint discloses
any cause of action, after deletion of the name of plaintiff No. 1 in Title
Suit No. 2430 of 2007. We have gone through the averments made in the said
plaint. After perusing the averments and on the basis of its entirety and
considering that the statements made in the plaint are correct, it appears
to us that the plaint discloses no cause of action and thereby it attracts
the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code, and accordingly we hold
that the High Court has correctly ascertained the position and allowed the
said application reversing the order of the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
14. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the High Court. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
2014 (March. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41337
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
Discussion
Comments are closed.