Telangana High Court
C Nanda Kumar vs Orchids Florist Private Limited on 23 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.1199 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the I Junior City Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.115 of 2021 in O.S.No.45 of 2021.
2. By the impugned order, the aforesaid application filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint was dismissed.
3. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.N.Veerender Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record.
4. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
5. The suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, etc., from visiting or interfering with the peaceful possession of the business activity of the plaintiff in the suit premises. The plaint averments, in brief, are that the plaintiff is the owner and Director of a currently running and operational retail florist business, with and under the brand 2 LNA, J CRP.No.1199 of 2022 name "Orchids Florist Pvt Ltd", in the suit schedule property since inception of the business in March, 1995 and are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any hindrance or interference from any one.
5.1. The suit schedule property belongs to the defendant and the same was given to the plaintiff on lease ever since 1995 for a monthly rental amount of Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, frequently and without any insistence from defendant, plaintiff has systematically and in good faith, increased the rental amount and as of the year 2020, plaintiff was paying to defendant a monthly rental amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and that ever since 1995 until today, the plaintiff has been paying the rents without any default. The plaintiff also deposited security deposit amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and fifty thousand only) with the defendant. There was also an understanding and promise that the defendant would give other alternative space for running plaintiff's business.
5.2. While so, on 27.11.2020, the defendant issued a notice to plaintiff for vacating the said premises, for which the plaintiff has given a reply on 31.12.2020 to the defendant for extension of the 3 LNA, J CRP.No.1199 of 2022 lease period and despite the same, defendant and his henchmen are threatening to vacate the plaintiff from the suit premises forcefully. 5.3. That the acts of the defendant and day-to-day visits to the suit scheduled property and threatening the plaintiff that they would vacate the premises forcefully is causing lot of hardship and mental agony to the plaintiff. That if the illegal acts of the defendant are not prevented by way of permanent injunction, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship, as huge amount is involved in the business of the plaintiff which cannot be compensated by any means. Hence, the suit.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant contended that the trial Court has failed to take note of the ample pleadings and the documentary evidence available on record and passed the impugned order, which is biased and perverse; that the discretion exercised by the trial Court was not in accordance with law; that the trial Court failed to deal with regard to the effect of notice of termination dated 27.11.2020 and thus, violated the principle of fair adjudication; that the cause of action disclosed in the plaint is illusionary in nature and created though there is no cause of action in the eye of law and therefore, the suit is liable to 4 LNA, J CRP.No.1199 of 2022 be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action. By contending thus, the learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the Revision by setting aside the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi 1
2. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali 2
3. Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy 3
4. Kandla Port v. Hargovind Jasraj 4
5. Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar 5
8. In the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the suit can be rejected on that ground. There is no quarrel with regard to the said proposition of law.
1 (2001) 8 SCC 233 2 (2020) 7 SCC 366 3 (2018) 13 SCC 480 4 (2013) 3 SCC 182 5 (2020) 7 SCC 275 5 LNA, J CRP.No.1199 of 2022
9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(1) H.S. Deekshit & Anr. v. Metropoli Overseas Limited and Others 6 (2) G. S & Anr. v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna & Ors 7 (3) Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. v. Smt. Sulanga Bose & Ors 8
10. A perusal of the plaint reveals that under the sub-heading "Cause of Action" it is stated as hereunder:-
"CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 27.11.2020 the defendant have issued a notice intimating to vacate to the Suit Schedule property of the defendant and subsequently continuing wherein the defendant has visited the suit schedule property and dispossess him forcefully and also on subsequent dates, when the defendants visited the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiff that they would vacate the suit schedule property forcibly at any time."
11. Thus, in the plaint, the date of notice of termination i.e., 27.11.2020 is clearly mentioned and it is further stated that 6 2022 SCC Online SC 2024 7 2023 SCC Online SC 12706, 8 (2022) 7 SCC 731 6 LNA, J CRP.No.1199 of 2022 subsequent to termination of notice, the defendant had been continuously visiting the suit schedule property and was trying to forcefully dispossess the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff that they would vacate the premises forcibly at any time.
12. It is settled principle that cause of action is a mixed question of fact and law, therefore, the issue of cause of action can be proved during the course of trial.
13. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:-
Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;7
LNA, J CRP.No.1199 of 2022
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.
14. Thus, Order VII Rule 11 CPC lays down an independent remedy available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits.
15. The defendant should necessarily satisfy the Court that the plaint falls under any of the grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the same.
16. In the impugned order, the trial Court observed as under:-
"It is not res integra that cause of action is bundle of facts. I am of the considered opinion that non disclosure of the date on which the defendant allegedly tried to dispossess the plaintiff cannot be termed as non- disclosure of cause of action in the plaint. I am of the considered opinion that cause of action has to be culled out from the conjoint reading of the plaint and the documents relied by the plaintiff. I am of the considered opinion that on holistic reading of the plaint, the plaint should disclose cause of action and the plaint cannot be read in truncation."
17. In the case on hand, the defendant failed to show that the plaint falls under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) CPC for rejection. In 8 LNA, J CRP.No.1199 of 2022 fact, the trial Court was right in observing that 'cause of action' has to be culled out from the conjoint reading of the plaint and the documents relied by the plaintiff and the plaint cannot be read in truncation.
18. Further, at the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned that under the sub-heading "Cause of action" in the plaint, the plaintiff specifically mentioned the date of termination notice and the subsequent regular visits of defendant to forcefully evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
19. In the light of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant that no specific date has been mentioned in the cause of action and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected on that ground is untenable and is contrary to the pleadings in the plaint.
20. In the present case, the plaint discloses the cause of action and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action is misconceived and not maintainable. The trial Court has rightly 9 LNA, J CRP.No.1199 of 2022 passed the impugned order by recording cogent reasons which warrants no interference by this Court.
21. In the light of the facts, circumstances of the case and legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner has ventured into this vexatious and frivolous litigation and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) payable to the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges Association, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:23.04.2024 dr