High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — Plaint Discloses Cause of Action for Recovery of Money. The court held that only plaint averments are relevant for Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action for recovery of balance amount.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 45
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s Cyrus Marine Services, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vasco, in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/2014/A, rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The respondent, K.A. Shivaraman, sole proprietor of M/s Siddhi Engineering, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,13,577/- against the petitioner, claiming that under a contract for repairs to vessels, various bills totaling Rs.22,08,196/- were raised, against which the respondent admitted receipt of Rs.9,94,619/-, leaving the balance outstanding. The petitioner contended that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action as it was not known when the amount was demanded and refused. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The High Court, per S.B. Shukre, J., dismissed the revision, observing that for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are to be examined, and the plaint clearly stated that bills were raised, part payment was made, and the balance remained unpaid, which constituted a cause of action. The court also noted that the petitioner's defence regarding the bills being time-barred or not payable could not be considered at this stage. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Cause of Action - The court held that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are to be considered and not the defence. The plaint disclosed a cause of action as it stated that bills were raised, part payment was made, and the balance remained unpaid. The trial court correctly rejected the application. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaint in a recovery suit discloses a cause of action and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
  • cause of action
  • rejection of plaint
  • plaint averments
  • recovery suit
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (01) 83

Civil Revision Application No. 41 of 2015

2016-01-13

S.B. Shukre, J

Mr. Balkrishna P. Sardessai for Petitioner, Mr. Bhargav M. Khandeparkar for Respondent

M/s Cyrus Marine Services

K.A. Shivaraman

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil Revision Application challenging rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a recovery suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Filing Reason

Petitioner contended that plaint did not disclose cause of action.

Previous Decisions

Trial court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 02.11.2015.

Issues

Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action for the suit for recovery of money. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the plaint does not disclose when the amount was demanded and refused, hence no cause of action. Respondent argued that the plaint clearly states bills were raised, part payment made, and balance unpaid, constituting a cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered, and if the plaint discloses a cause of action, the application must be rejected. The defence of the defendant cannot be considered at this stage.

Judgment Excerpts

For the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., what is required to be seen is only the averments made in the plaint and not the defence of the defendant. The plaint does disclose a cause of action inasmuch as it states that the bills were raised, part payment was made and the remaining amount is still outstanding.

Procedural History

The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 56/2014/A for recovery of Rs.12,13,577/-. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was rejected by the trial court on 02.11.2015. The petitioner then filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 7 Rule 11, Section 115
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — Plaint Discloses Cause of Action for Recovery of Money. The court held that only plaint averments are relevant for Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the pl...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses State Appeal in Land Title Suit — Upholds Declaration of Ownership and Injunction Against Revenue Authorities. Government Officials Cannot Unilaterally Alter Land Records Without Adjudication of Title Under Spe...