Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Gurudas G. Pai, filed Special Civil Suit No.34/2011/A before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim, against the petitioner, Ms. Sociedade De Formento Industrial Ltd., and other defendants, seeking damages of Rs.25 lakhs and permanent and mandatory injunctions. The respondent claimed to be a co-owner of an undivided property in Pissurelem Village, and alleged that the petitioner and other defendants, acting under permission from defendant no.1 to operate a mining concession, dumped mining rejects on the suit property indiscriminately and without permission, rendering the fertile land fallow and uncultivatable. The respondent sent a notice dated 28/4/1998 to stop dumping, but the dumping continued and the rejects remained. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of limitation, lack of jurisdiction, and no cause of action. The Civil Judge rejected the application on 27/4/2015. The petitioner challenged this order in the present Civil Revision Application. The High Court of Bombay at Goa, after hearing both sides, dismissed the revision application. The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the preliminary stage unless the plaint is ex-facie barred; the plaint alleged continuing dumping and damage, which may constitute a continuing cause of action. Regarding jurisdiction, the court held that the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the suit involves mining activities; the plaint discloses a claim for damages and injunction within the civil court's jurisdiction. As for cause of action, the court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action as it alleged dumping without permission, causing loss, and refusal to stop. The court found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the revision.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Limitation - The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 unless the plaint is ex-facie barred. The plaint alleged continuing dumping and damage, which may constitute a continuing cause of action. (Paras 5-6) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Jurisdiction - The court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted merely because the suit involves mining activities; the plaint discloses a claim for damages and injunction which is within the civil court's jurisdiction. (Paras 7-8) C) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Cause of Action - The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action as it alleged dumping of mining rejects without permission, causing loss, and refusal to stop. The existence of a cause of action is to be ascertained from the plaint averments alone. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a suit for damages and injunction based on dumping of mining rejects on the plaintiff's land is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of limitation, lack of jurisdiction, and no cause of action.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the order of the Civil Judge rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Limitation Act 1963
- Cause of Action
- Jurisdiction
- Plaint Rejection
- Continuing Cause of Action
- Mining Rejects Dumping
