Case Note & Summary
The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents (defendants) in O.S. No. 69/2016 before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners and in possession of the suit property and that the defendants had no right over it. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint by order dated 06.10.2016. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad. The High Court examined the plaint allegations and held that the plaint must be read as a whole. It noted that the plaintiffs had specifically pleaded that they were in possession and that the defendants were trying to interfere with their possession. The court observed that the trial court had erroneously held that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that the suit for injunction was not maintainable. The High Court set aside the order of rejection and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The revision petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC - Cause of Action - The trial court rejected the plaint holding that the suit for declaration and injunction was not maintainable as the plaintiffs were not in possession and the remedy was to file a suit for possession. The High Court held that the plaint must be read as a whole and if it discloses a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected. The plaintiffs had alleged that the defendants were trying to interfere with their possession and sought a declaration that the defendants had no right over the suit property. The High Court found that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and set aside the order of rejection. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad on I.A. No. IX, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC
- cause of action
- rejection of plaint
- plaint reading as a whole
- inherent lack of jurisdiction
