Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Smt. Jayashree Ashok Goregaonkar, filed a suit for partition against the defendants, including Kanta Chandrakant Mhatre and others. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of Revati Goregaonkar. The defendants 1 to 4 filed a Chamber Summons under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action and is barred by limitation. The court, after hearing counsel, briefly stated the facts and the genealogy of the family. The court noted that the plaintiff, being a daughter-in-law, is not a coparcener and thus has no cause of action for partition. Additionally, the suit appeared to be barred by limitation. The court allowed the Chamber Summons and rejected the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC - Cause of Action and Limitation - The court considered whether the plaint in a partition suit filed by a daughter-in-law disclosed a cause of action and was within limitation. The court held that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action as the plaintiff was not a coparcener and the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and whether the suit is barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Chamber Summons allowed. Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Cause of action
- Limitation
- Partition suit
- Daughter-in-law
- Coparcenary
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (10) 25
Chamber Summons No.963 of 2005 in Suit No.1649 of 2005
Mr. R.S. Apte with Mr. N.R. Bubna for Plaintiff; Mr. Amit Borkar i/b M/s. Vinod Mistry & Co. for Defendants 1 to 4; Mr. Nitin Mulye i/b Mr. Girish Godbole for Defendant No.13
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Remedy Sought
Defendants 1 to 4 sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC
Filing Reason
Plaintiff, daughter-in-law of Revati Goregaonkar, filed suit for partition of ancestral property
Issues
Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action?
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
Submissions/Arguments
Defendants 1 to 4 argued that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is barred by limitation.
Plaintiff opposed the Chamber Summons.
Ratio Decidendi
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) if it does not disclose a cause of action, and under Rule 11(d) if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. In this case, the plaintiff being a daughter-in-law is not a coparcener and thus has no cause of action for partition, and the suit is also barred by limitation.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Chamber Summons, Defendants 1 to 4 pray that the Plaint be rejected on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action as also being barred by Law of Limitation in terms of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Briefly stated, the present Suit is for partition filed by the daughter-in-law of Revati Goregaonkar.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Suit No.1649 of 2005 for partition. Defendants 1 to 4 filed Chamber Summons No.963 of 2005 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. The court heard counsel and allowed the Chamber Summons, rejecting the plaint.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11(a), Order VII Rule 11(d)
