The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai in the case titled Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan dated 21-09-2021 gives their opinion on whether plaint can be rejected if reliefs claimed in it cannot be granted under law.
Facts of the case:
A Civil Suit is filed by plaintiffs before Calcutta High Court seeking a decree for the dissolution of the firm Soorajmull Nagarmull and for the winding up of its affairs submitting that in spite of the demise of the three original partners of the partnership firm, through whom the plaintiffs were claiming, the defendants have been carrying on the business of the partnership firm. The defendants filed two applications seeking dismissal of the suit, or in the alternative, rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and the relief as claimed in the plaint could not be granted.
High Court’s observation and Judgment:
The Single Judge had dismissed applications filed by the defendants. The Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the appeal filed against the said order.
Supreme Court’s Observation and Judgment:
The Supreme Court has held that “the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which, upon an elaborate scrutiny of the averments made in the plaint, the reliefs claimed therein, the provisions of the said Act and the clauses of the Partnership Deed, came to the conclusion that the reliefs as sought in the plaint, cannot be granted. The appeals are found to be without merit, and as such, are dismissed.”
Read Judgment
Share this Document :Picture Source :
