Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Rajendra Vinayakrao Ayachit, proprietor of M/s Raj Sales Corporation, Latur, filed Special Civil Suit No.212/2008 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, against the defendants, Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, its Managing Director, and Vice President (Sales). The suit sought settlement of accounts and recovery of an amount, alleging that the plaintiff acted as a distributor/agent for the defendants' products and that the defendants failed to pay amounts due under the agreement. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The defendants then filed a civil revision application in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The High Court heard the matter and considered whether the plaint was liable to be rejected. The court noted that the plaint contained specific averments regarding the agency relationship, the terms of the agreement, and the alleged breach by the defendants. The court held that the question of whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action must be determined solely on the basis of the averments in the plaint, and not on the basis of the defense. Since the plaint alleged facts that, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief, the plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court dismissed the revision application, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court considered whether a plaint for settlement of accounts and recovery of amount should be rejected for lack of cause of action - The plaintiff alleged an agency relationship and breach of contract by the defendants - The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected at the threshold, as the averments, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a suit for settlement of accounts and recovery of amount discloses a cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the trial court's order that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Cause of Action
- Settlement of Accounts
- Agency
- Contract
