Case Note & Summary
The present case arises from a civil revision petition filed by the defendants (petitioners) against an order of the III Additional Civil Judge, Vijayapura, dismissing their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.110/2019. The respondent (plaintiff) had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners, claiming possession of certain property. The petitioners contended that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by law, as the plaintiff had previously filed a similar suit which was dismissed. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The High Court, after hearing arguments, examined the plaint and found that it lacked essential averments to constitute a cause of action. The plaintiff merely stated that he was in possession and that the defendants were trying to interfere, but no specific incident or date of interference was mentioned. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for the same relief, which was dismissed, and the present suit appeared to be an abuse of process. The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the trial court's order, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by law. The court held that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be rejected.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Barred by Law - The court considered whether the plaint in a suit for permanent injunction was liable to be rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to disclose a cause of action and that the suit was filed in the backdrop of prior litigation between the parties. The High Court held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by law, as the plaintiff had previously filed a suit for the same relief which was dismissed, and the present suit was an abuse of process. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Cause of Action - Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC - The court examined whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The High Court found that the plaint lacked essential averments to constitute a cause of action for permanent injunction, as the plaintiff merely alleged possession without any specific incident of interference or threat from the defendants. The court held that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC as well. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of plaint as barred by law, given the plaintiff's failure to disclose a valid cause of action and the existence of prior litigation between the parties.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge, Vijayapura, in I.A.No.II in O.S.No.110/2019, and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, thereby rejecting the plaint.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Rejection of plaint
- Barred by law
- Cause of action
- Permanent injunction
