High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Plaint Rejection Application in Communidade Property Suit. Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC Application Dismissed as Plaint Disclosed Cause of Action Under Code of Comunidades.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 82
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd., filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the order dated 20th March 2006 passed by the trial court, which rejected the petitioner's application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of CPC for rejection of the plaint. The plaint was filed by the respondent, Communidade of Sancoale, seeking reliefs related to alleged forfeiture of property under the Code of Comunidades, a local law in Goa. The petitioner argued that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and relied on the Supreme Court decisions in I.T.C. Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal. The trial court, however, held that the plaint, read as a whole, did disclose a cause of action. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no error in the trial court's reasoning. The court noted that the plaint referred to specific provisions of the Code of Comunidades and alleged facts that, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief. The revision application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously. The judgment emphasizes that for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a), the court must only look at the plaint and if it discloses a cause of action, even if weak, the plaint cannot be rejected.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC - Cause of Action - The court must read the plaint as a whole to determine if it discloses a cause of action; only if the plaint manifestly fails to disclose any cause of action can it be rejected. The trial court's order rejecting the application was upheld as the plaint disclosed a cause of action under the Code of Comunidades. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The trial court's order dated 20th March 2006 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is upheld. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.

Law Points

  • Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC
  • Rejection of plaint
  • Cause of action
  • Code of Comunidades
  • Plaint reading as a whole
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 112

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14/2006

2006-09-06

R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR

Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. Agha for petitioner; Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni and Mr. H. D. Naik for respondents

M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd.

Communidade of Sancoale and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Revision Application challenging rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for rejection of plaint.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought rejection of plaint on ground of no cause of action.

Filing Reason

Petitioner contended that the plaint filed by the respondent did not disclose any cause of action.

Previous Decisions

Trial court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC on 20th March 2006.

Issues

Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action for the suit.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the plaint fails to disclose real cause of action, relying on I.T.C. Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal. Respondents supported the trial court's order that the plaint does disclose a cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

For rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, the court must read the plaint as a whole; if it discloses a cause of action, even if weak, the plaint cannot be rejected. The trial court correctly found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action under the Code of Comunidades.

Judgment Excerpts

By the present revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th March, 2006, passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of C.P.C. The application by the petitioner was for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose the cause of action.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC before the trial court for rejection of the plaint. The trial court rejected that application on 20th March 2006. The petitioner then filed the present Civil Revision Application before the High Court challenging that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII, Rule 11(a)
  • Code of Comunidades:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Borrower's Challenge to DRAT Order in SARFAESI Act Possession Dispute — Possession Notice Valid but Sale Notice Invalid. Bank Permitted to Proceed from Stage of Rule 8(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in NDPS Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 50. Search of Accused Without Informing Them of Right to be Searched Before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate Renders Recovery Illegal.