Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Goa Industrial Development Corporation, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC challenging an order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-2, North Goa, Panaji, rejecting its application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The respondent no.1, M/s Sadhana Builders Pvt. Ltd., is the owner of a suit property bearing survey no. 23/1-B, which is landlocked and has access only through a road situated on its western boundary. This road passes through a plot of land belonging to the petitioner. The respondent no.1 contended that the suit road existed even before the property through which it passes was acquired by the State Government for industrial development. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 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 and raised triable issues. The High Court, in revision, examined whether the impugned order was illegal or perverse. The court noted that the only point for determination was whether the order was so illegal and perverse as to call for interference. The court held that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action and raised triable issues regarding the existence of the road and the claim of easement of necessity. The court found that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion and that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Triable Issues - The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and raised triable issues regarding the existence of a road and easement of necessity, and therefore the application for rejection of plaint was rightly dismissed. (Paras 2-5) B) Easement - Easement of Necessity - Access to Landlocked Property - The respondent claimed that the suit road existed prior to acquisition and provided access to the landlocked property, which was a triable issue not suitable for summary rejection. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is so illegal and perverse as to call for interference?
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The impugned order dated 3.3.2011 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-2, North Goa, Panaji is upheld.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- rejection of plaint
- easement of necessity
- triable issues
- plaint disclosing cause of action
