Varron Auto Kast Limited, Nagpur vs Ravi Ramesh Muthal And Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 3863 Bom

                                                                                                             cra J 24-16.odt
                                                              1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2016

              Varron Auto Kast Limited
              A company duly incorporated
              under the Companies Act, 1956
              having its registered office at 
              Khasara No. 174, 176/1, 185, 186/2, 
              191, 196, 201/1, 201/2 at village 
              Chimnazari, Chandrapure Road, 
              Tahsil and District: Nagpur.       ....... APPELLANT

                         ...V E R S U S...

 1]           Ravi Ramesh Muthal
              Aged 40 years, Occ: Business
              R/o 79/2, "Sadbhavna"
              Nagar, Near Onkar Nagar, Ring Road
              Nagpur.

 2]           Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution 
              Company Limited
              Through its Superintending Engineer, 
              Nagpur.                        .........(Deleted
                                                               vide   order 
                                                    dated 13.1.2017.)

 3]       The Electrical Inspector
          PWD Complex Bungalow
          No. 39/1, Civil Lines
          Nagpur.                                   ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri.  U. A. Gosavi, Advocate for Appellant.
          Shri.  M. A. Vishwarupe, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              CORAM :  SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. 

              DATE    :  1 st
                              JULY, 2017.





                                                                                                              cra J 24-16.odt



 ORAL JUDGMENT

Legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by

the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in

Special Civil Suit No. 465/15 dated 2.3.2016 is the subject matter

of this revision. By the said order, the learned trial Court has

rejected the application filed by the present applicant under

Order-VII Rule-11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of

the plaint, on the ground that it does not disclose the cause of

action and when it arose.

2] The facts, which may be necessary for deciding this

application are that,

Respondent no.1 has filed the suit for recovery of the

amount of Rs.6,40,04,390.80 from the present applicant towards

the electrification work done by him in pursuance of the

agreement executed between the parties. In the said suit, he has

also claimed relief of perpetual injunction. According to

respondent no.1, he has carried out work as per the agreement, he

has also raised invoices. However, only part payment was made

and the remaining payment was not made. Therefore, he was

constrained to file the suit for recovery of payment.

cra J 24-16.odt

3] On appearance, the appellant filed application for

rejection of the plaint on the count that, as it does not disclose

cause of action or when it arose, the plaint needs to be rejected in

view of provisions under Order-VII Rule-11(a) of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

4] This application came to be resisted by respondent

no.1 contending inter-alia that all the necessary averments are

made in the plaint, which clearly disclose not only completion and

execution of the work, which the respondent-plaintiff had

undertaken as per the agreement but the plaint also discloses the

fact that invoices were raised for the payment; the date on which

the invoices were made, is also stated in the plaint. Thus, it is

submitted that as the facts constituting the cause of action are

sufficiently mentioned in the plaint, the application for rejection

of the plaint on that ground needs to be dismissed.

5] On this application, the trial Court heard learned

counsel for both the parties and was pleased to reject the

application holding that the cause of action is bundle of facts and

cra J 24-16.odt

those bundle of facts are sufficiently appearing in the plaint; the

averments in the plaint also disclose as to when the cause of

action arose and hence, there was no substance in the application.

The trial Court was, therefore, pleased to reject the application.

6] While challenging this order of the trial Court,

learned counsel for applicant submits that Order-VII Rule-1(e) of

Code of Civil Procedure mandates that plaint should contain the

particulars the facts constituting the cause of action and when it

arose. According to him, Order-VII Rule-11(a) of the Code of Civil

Procedure further mandates the Court that plaint shall be rejected

where it does not disclose the cause of action. He further submits

that, whether the plaint discloses the cause of action or not, is to

be decided on the bare reading of the averments made in the

plaint. According to him, at the most, the averments made in the

plaint in the present case may disclose the facts constituting the

right to sue, but they do not disclose the cause of action or the

date when the cause of action arose.

7] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits

that para-31 of the plaint more than sufficiently discloses the

cra J 24-16.odt

cause of action. According to him, the plaint has to be read in its

entirety to ascertain whether it discloses the cause of action and

when it arose.

8] In the light of these rival submissions advanced

before me by both the learned counsel for both the parties, the

legal position is undisputed that the provisions of Order-VII Rule

1(e) C.P.C. mandate the disclosure of the cause of action and

when it arose, whereas, Rule-11(a) of Order-VII C.P.C. further

mandates that plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a

cause of action. Moreover, the legal position is further crystalised

that, for deciding whether the plaint discloses cause of action or

not, the averments made in the plaint are to be the guiding factors

and they have to be read in its entirety.

9] In this case, even the bare perusal of the plaint

reveals that there are sufficient averments made in the plaint as to

the dispute between the parties to the suit. As per the averments

in the plaint, in pursuance of the agreement executed between

appellant and respondent no.1, respondent no.1 has carried out

various work-items. In para-20 of the plaint, it is clearly stated

cra J 24-16.odt

that respondent no.1 has forwarded the invoices to the present

appellant about the work done by him and the amount due, along

with the summary sheet on 18.4.2015 in which it was stated that

value of the work done by him was Rs.10,92,51,252/- and the

amount which he has received was Rs.5,33,01,217/-. It was

further stated therein that sum of Rs.5,40,04,390/- is yet due from

the appellant. Respondent no.1 has in paragraph-21 has, further

stated that he has discharged his contractual obligation by

completing the work under the first agreement, except charging

the supply line, likewise he has also done major work under the

second agreement, however, installation of work is stalled as the

appellant-defendant no.1.

10] Thus, there are sufficient averments in the plaint as to

why respondent no.1 plaintiff was constrained to approach the

Court for the purpose of recovery of amount. Reading of the plaint

in its entirety definitely discloses the particulars of the facts, which

constitute the cause of action.

11] It may be true that in para-31 the plaintiff has not

disclosed the exact date on which cause of action arose. He has

cra J 24-16.odt

merely stated that "the agreements have been entered into on

7.11.2014 and 21.11.2014, the works have been executed

thereafter for which, the amount claimed in the suit has fallen

due". However, he has not stated on which date the amount

claimed in the suit became due. Admittedly, he has also not issued

the demand notice for recovery of amount, nor given the bills as

such. However, the fact remains that in para-20 of the plaint, as

referred above, he has stated that invoices were forwarded to

defendant no.1 with summary sheet dated 18.4.2015 and only

part of the amount was paid and balance remained unpaid.

Hence, the plaint discloses even the date for occrual of cause of

action. It has to be stated that pleadings are not to be construed

too strictly, as the Court is not to adopt the technical approach.

The law is well settled that pleadings are required to be construed

liberally.

12] In this case also, if the pleadings are construed

liberally, then the averments in plaint are sufficient to disclose

that the cause of action arose when the invoices were raised by

summary sheet dated 18.4.2015, however, entire amount raised in

the invoices was not paid. Therefore, on reading of the plaint in

cra J 24-16.odt

its proper perspective, and in a meaningful manner, it has to be

held that the plaint contains the facts constituting cause of action

and the date when it arose.

13] The application under Order-VII Rule-11(a) of the

Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint was therefore,

rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

The impugned order passed by trial Court being just,

legal and correct, no interference is warranted therein. The

Revision, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

RGIngole