Bombay High Court Dismissed Civil Revision Application of Applicant Challenging Rejection of Application for Plaint Rejection.

The Court held that a plaint should only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when it is evident from the pleadings that there is no cause of action or the suit is barred by law. The Court underscored the principle that the plaintiff must be given a fair chance to substantiate claims unless the absence of cause of action is manifestly clear. (Para 36).

The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, affirming that the rejection of the plaint solely on the basis of absence of a clear right to sue could not be justified without allowing the plaintiff the opportunity to provide evidence.

Acts and Provisions:

• Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint.

• Hindu Succession Act 1956 — Section 6 — Coparcenary Rights of Daughters.

Subjects:

Rejection of Plaint — Cause of Action — Ancestral Property — Coparcenary Rights — Hindu Succession Act — Joint Hindu Family — Revisional Jurisdiction — Opportunity to Adduce Evidence.

Nature of Litigation: Civil Revision Application filed by the Applicant, Mohan Hirachand Shah, challenging the rejection of his application for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Relief Sought: The Applicant sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it lacked a cause of action and was an abuse of the process of law.

Reason for Filing the Case: The Applicant contended that the properties in question were his separate and self-acquired properties and that the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession was baseless and vexatious.

Prior Decisions: The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, had rejected the Applicant’s plea for rejection of the plaint, stating that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to substantiate her claim through evidence.

Issues:

(a) Whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action for partition and separate possession of the alleged ancestral properties. (b) Whether the properties described were ancestral or separate properties of the Applicant. (c) Whether the suit was barred by any law.

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) The Applicant argued that the properties were self-acquired and had already been judicially determined as separate properties. (b) The Respondent claimed coparcenary rights, stating that the properties were ancestral and that she was entitled to her share.