//
you're reading...
legal issues

Or.7 Rule 11 C.P.C. – Rejection of plaintas 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 = Soumik Sil … Appellant vs. Subhas Chandra Sil … Respondent= 2014 (March. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41337

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

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,806,271 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,863 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com