The division judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Apex Court in the case of G. Nagaraj & Anr. Vs B.P. Mruthunjayanna & Ors held that merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellants filed the suit in the City Civil Court in Bangalore claiming a declaration of title of the suit property in the favour of the first Appellant. Thereafter, an application was filed by Respondent No. 2 and 3 and the trial court rejected the plaint by exercising the power under Rule 11 (a) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the basis that the plaint doesn’t disclose the cause of action.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that while considering the application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the claims made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be taken into consideration. The defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into. When the lack of a cause of action is used as the justification for rejecting the plaint, the court must review the plaint to determine whether a cause of action has been disclosed.
It was noted that in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the plaint, the cause of action for filing the suit has been mentioned in some detail. It is pleaded in the plaint how the first appellant acquired the title of the property.
It was furthermore noted that it was not sufficient to conclude that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint only because some of the averments in the plaint were inconsistent.
Based on these considerations, the Top Court set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court and restore the original suit.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Apex Court allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: G. Nagaraj & Anr. Vs B.P. Mruthunjayanna & Ors
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2737 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19944 of 2019)
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 389 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Ms. Saumyan Tandon, Adv. Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Nagesh, Adv. Ms. Disha Gupta, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Adv. Mr. N K Verma, Adv. Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
