[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Manoj Kumar Gupta vs Sri Aloke Kumar Gupta & Ors on 31 March, 2026

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
              (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
                             ORIGINAL SIDE




Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao



                           IA No. G.A. 5 of 2023

                                      In

                           C.S. No. 246 of 2022


                           Manoj Kumar Gupta

                                    Versus

                     Sri Aloke Kumar Gupta & Ors.



           Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.
           Mr. Sabyasachi Sen
           Ms. Pallavi Chatterjee
                                              ... For the plaintiff.
           Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv.
           Mr. Debmalya Ghoshal
           Mr. Niladri Khanna
           Ms. Doyel Dey
                                             ... For the defendants.



Hearing Concluded On : 09.03.2026

Judgment on          : 31.03.2026
                                         2


Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The defendant Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 have filed the present application

being G.A. No. 5 of 2023 praying for rejection of the plaint on the

ground of barred by limitation, barred by Section 430 of the Companies

Act, 2013 and no cause of action disclosed in the plaint.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for the following reliefs:

a) A decree of declaration that the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 are the joint owners of the companies, businesses, assets and properties;

b) A decree of declaration declaring that the alteration in respect of shareholding pattern and as also the directorial pattern and composition of the defendant nos. 8 to 15 are without authority and not binding upon the plaintiff;

c) A decree of declaration that irrespective of shareholding and directorial patterns and/or composition of the defendant nos. 8 to 15, the properties, businesses and assets of such companies and firms including those mentioned in Annexure "B" hereto are joint amongst the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2;

d) A decree of Mandatory Injunction be passed directing the defendants to restore the original share holding pattern and directorial pattern and/or composition in respect of the defendant nos. 8 to 15;

e) Decree for mandatory injunction be passed directing the defendant no. 1, 2, 6 and 7 to disclose the full particulars of various movable properties including jewelry owned by Smt. Gayetri Gupta in the instant proceedings

f) A preliminary decree be passed declaring that the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 and the

defendant no. 2 each having undivided 1/3rd share in the businesses, assets and properties;

g) A final decree for partition by appointment of a Commissioner of Partition in accordance with law with a direction to partition the properties which are capable of partition by metes and bounds and with a further direction to value the other properties, businesses and assets and allot the same in order to make over 1/3rd hereof to the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with law;

h) Judgement upon admission;

i) Commissioner;

j) Receiver;

k) Injunction;

l) Costs;

m) Such other relief or reliefs."

3. The plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers and the

defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the sisters of the plaintiff. The defendant

no.6 is the wife of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no. 7 is the

wife of the defendant no.2. The plaintiff has not claimed any reliefs

against the defendant nos. 6 and 7. The defendant nos. 8 to 15 are the

companies or the partnership firms. Shri Radheshyam Gupta (since

deceased) is the father of the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 5 and

father-in-law of the defendant nos. 6 and 7.

4. Mr. Mainak Bose, Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendant

nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 submits that the plaintiff has disclosed legal notice

dated 13th May, 2022 and from the said legal notice, it reveals that the

plaintiff was not only aware but was conscious of the fact that there

was a family settlement in the month of November, 2012 after the death

of the father, in which the plaintiff was the party and accepted the

settlement and acted upon the terms of settlement. He submits that

after the period of 10 years from settlement, the plaintiff has raised

dispute of the said family settlement. In support of his submissions,

Mr. Bose relied upon the judgment in the case of Dahiben Vs.

Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal

Representatives & Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 and submits

that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is

manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a

right to sue, the Court would be justified in exercising the power under

Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. Mr. Bose submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is ex-facie barred by

limitation as the right of the parties have been settled in the year 2012

by way of settlement. He further submits that during the life time of the

mother, the family settlement was given effect to and admittedly the

entitlement of the plaintiff which included Ipsa Credit Private Limited,

Mars Viniyog Private Limited and Parag Finlease Private Limited were

made over to the plaintiff.

6. Mr. Bose submits that settlement arrived between the parties during

the life time of the mother of the parties has been given effect to and

right have been transferred and benefits have been enjoyed, thus the

plaintiff cannot challenge the said settlement and seek partition of the

properties. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Khatri

Hotels Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Another reported in

(2011) 9 SCC 126 and submits that successive violation of the right

will not give rise to a fresh cause of action and the suit will be liable to

be dismissed it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date

when the right to sue first accrued.

7. Mr. Bose submits that the shareholders or the directors neither have

any right nor can claim any title to any property owned by the

company. The plaintiff as an individual does not have any cause of

action to claim any right, title or interest of any assets or properties

owned by any incorporated company. He submits that the plaintiff does

not have any cause of action and right to sue with respect to such

assets and properties of the defendant nos. 8 to 15. He submits that

the plaintiff prays for a declaration in respect of shareholding patterns,

which are alleged to have altered by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and

have illegally oust the plaintiff from the management and control of the

defendant companies, thus in terms of prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the

plaint, the plaintiff has to approach the Learned National Company Law

Tribunal (NCLT). He submits that as per provisions of Section 430 read

with Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, this Court does

not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. He

has relied upon the judgment in the case of Shashi Prakash Khemka

(Dead) through Lrs. & Anr. Vs. NEPC MICON (Now NEPC India

Limited) and Others reported in (2019) 18 SCC 569 and submits that

the Learned National Company Law Tribunal is having the exclusive

jurisdiction to deal with all issues relating to oppression and

mismanagement of the company.

8. Mr. Sakya Sen, Learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiff

submits that sometimes in the year 1970, the father Radheshyam

Gupta started a timber and plywood manufacturing unit under the

name and style of "National Industrial Corporation" as sole

proprietorship firm. Thereafter the name of the concern firm was

changed to "Bihar Plywood & Timber Industries". He submits that the

plaintiff and defendant no.1 also joined with the father and started

assisting their father in running and expanding the said business.

9. Mr. Sen submits that out of the earnings and profits of the said

business started diversifying the business and invested the surplus

amount of the business corpus for acquisition of other businesses, like

finance, investment in stock market and real estate properties etc. He

submits that the businesses were carried on and properties were held

under the names of different persons and entities including the

defendant nos. 8 to 15. The companies amongst such entities had and

has diverse stock holdings. Shares in such companies were and are

held by the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their respective

family members, relatives, friends and associates. He submits that all

such entities were all along treated by all concerned including the

plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their father to be the part of

the business of joint family of the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 and 2

and their father.

10. After the death of the father on 27th June, 2003, the plaintiff and

defendant nos.1 and 2 continued to carry on their business jointly as

joint owners of such businesses, assets and properties owned in the

name of the defendant nos. 8 to 15. The mother died on 9th May, 2021.

He submits that after the death of father, the plaintiff and the

defendant nos.1 and 2 continued to carry on businesses as jointly

having 1/3rd share each or interest thereon.

11. Mr. Sen submits that after the death of father, the plaintiff time and

again called upon the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to partition the

companies, properties, businesses and assets which continued to

remain joined on the basis of their respective valuations so that it could

be allotted amongst the three brothers in equal shares but the

defendant nos. 1 and 2 refused to partition.

12. Mr. Sen submits that issue of limitation is always a mixed question of

law and fact and to determine whether the claims are ex-facie barred by

limitation is to be read as a whole and no particular averment can be

read in isolation. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Salim D.

Agboatwala and Others Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and

Others reported in (2021) 17 SCC 100 and submits that the defendant

cannot pick up a few sentences here and there from the plaint and

contend that the plaintiff had constructive notice of the proceedings

and that therefore limitation started running from the date of

constructive notice.

13. Mr. Sen submits that the stand of the defendant in the written

statement or in the application for rejection is immaterial. He has relied

upon the judgment in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by

GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Anr. Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and

Others reported (2015) 8 SCC 331 and submits that averments made

in the plaint will have to be accepted as correct for the purpose of

consideration of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 filed by the

defendants.

14. Mr. Sen submits that the present application is filed by defendant nos.

1, 2, 6 and 7 though there are altogether 15 defendants. He submits

that the plaint either is to be rejected as a whole or not at all in exercise

of power under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. He has relied upon the

judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and Another Vs.

Axis Bank Limited and Another reported in (2019) 7 SCC 158.

15. Mr. Sen submits that the inheritance of the estate of deceased is a civil

dispute and could not be said to be an act of oppression and

mismanagement. Such a dispute could not be adjudicated in a

company petition filed during the pendency of civil suit. He has relied

upon the judgment in the case of Aruna Oswal Vs. Pankaj Oswal and

Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 79.

16. The first issue raised by the defendants in the present application is

that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants in support of this

issue, have relied upon the paragraphs 21 and 29 of the plaint with the

legal notice dated 13th May, 2022. Paragraphs 21 and 29 of the plaint,

reads as follows:

"21. The fact that the said properties, businesses and assets were joined between the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 were and/or are not in dispute until 2011. However, taking advantage of commanding position of the defendant no. 2 by being a Chartered Accountant and being blind foldedly trusted by the plaintiff and also the fact that the registered office of most of the defendant companies were situated in Kolkata where the defendant no. 2 was located, the defendant no. 2 who in concert and collusion with the defendant no. 1 has altered the position and is now alleging that some of such companies, properties, assets and businesses are not joint.

29. The defendant no. 1 and 2 is seeking to deny the plaintiff's lawful shares in the joint companies, properties, businesses and assets on frivolous and baseless grounds by contending that the defendant nos. 8 to 15 are juristic entities and cannot be subject matter of joint properties and cannot be subjected to partition. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are also illegally contending the independent right, title and interest of their family members, some of such companies, businesses, properties and assets which are in fact jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2. In addition thereto, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are taking shelter of an advice of a mediator namely, Sourabh Jalan which has communicated to the parties by way of an email dated 24th November, 2012 which is not at all binding upon the plaintiff. Thus, the question of acting in terms of such email by the plaintiff does not and cannot arise."

17. The plaintiff has given details of shares, assets and properties which

the plaintiff is entitled to get being his share but has not been done by

the mediator. In the said letter, it is also alleged that the defendant nos.

1 and 2 have withheld all necessary documents of the companies,

properties including personal documents and files of the plaintiff.

18. The defendants have relied upon Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963,

which reads as follows:-

Description of Suit Period of limitation Time from which period beings to run

58. To obtain any Three Years When the right to sue other declaration. first accrues.

As per the contentions of the defendants that the plaintiff's right to

sue arose on 25th November, 2012. The defendants have relied upon

the family settlement of November, 2012 but the defendants have not

disclosed any settlement deed. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that

the mediator appointed for settlement has not dealt with all the

properties and also not acted impartially.

19. It is also the case of the plaintiff that after the death of mother on 9th

May, 2021, the share of the mother in the properties, assets and

companies mentioned in an email dated 25th November, 2012, have

been grabbed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2. The defendants have

relied upon the judgment in the case of Dahiben (supra) wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

"23.13 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

24. "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.

28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right to sue" mean the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order 7 Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected."

The defendants have further relied upon the judgment in the case

of Khatri Hotels Private Limited (supra) wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that:

"30. While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the legislature has designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The word "first" has been used between the words "sue" and "accrued". This would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued."

20. The plaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the case of P.V. Guru Raj

Reddy (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

"9. Both the suits were filed in July 2002 which is well within three years of the date of knowledge, as claimed by the plaintiffs, of the fact that the property had not been transferred in the name of Plaintiff 2 by Defendants 1 and 2. The aforesaid averments made in the plaint will have to be accepted as correct for the purposes of consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 filed by Defendants 1 and 2. If that be so, the averments in the plaint would not disclose that either of the suits is barred by limitation so as to justify rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC."

The plaintiff also relied upon the judgment in the case of Salim D.

Agboatwala (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

"8. Insofar as the rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasise that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. It is the case of the appellant- plaintiffs that only after making inspection of the records in connection with the suit land available in the office of Defendant 3 (Court Receiver) that they came across the correspondence and documents relating to the transactions and that the proceedings before ALT were collusive, fraudulent and null and void. The appellant-plaintiffs have even questioned the authority of the Court Receiver to represent them in the tenancy proceedings.

9. The above averments may or may not be true. But if the plaintiffs succeed in establishing the above averments, the issue of limitation cannot be put against the plaintiffs. Generally a party, who never had any notice of a particular proceeding before a quasi-judicial authority, is entitled to approach the court upon gaining knowledge of the proceedings. Limitation cannot be put against such a party.

10. We are not dealing here with a case where notices were ordered to be issued, but were

not or could not, be served on necessary and proper parties. We are dealing with a case where the plaintiffs assert in no uncertain terms that notices were never ordered to them nor served on them. Therefore, the answer to the issue regarding limitation, will depend upon the evidence with regard to the issuance and service of notice and the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence, the trial court as well as the High Court were not right in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation, especially in the facts and circumstances of this case."

21. In the present case, the plaintiff has given the details that after the

death of the father, the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 continue to

expand the joint businesses and the entire earning and profit out of the

joint businesses are enjoyed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant nos.

1 and 2. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the defendant nos.1 and

his wife were also looking after the business of the companies at

Jharkhand and Bihar and the defendant no.2 and his wife were looking

after the business and companies having head offices at West Bengal

and Bangalore.

22. The plaintiff has also categorically alleged that the defendant no. 2

being the qualified Chartered Accountant and also a Company

Secretary having advantage of commanding position in connivance with

the defendant no.1 altered the position of the shareholding pattern and

directorship of several companies. The plaintiff has given the details of

misdeeds of the defendant nos.1 and 2 in paragraphs 19 (i) to (vii) of

the plaint.

23. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the mediator has not acted

impartially and even after the death of the mother on 9th May, 2021,

the share of the mother has been grabbed by the defendants. The

mother died on 9th May, 2021. The plaintiff had issued notice on 13th

May, 2022. The defendants have filed the present application harping

upon the settlement of November, 2012. It is the specific case that the

settlement was not impartially and several properties were not

considered by the mediator.

24. It is settled law that the defendants cannot pick up a few sentences

here and there from the plaint and say that the plaint filed by the

plaintiff is barred by limitation. The Court has to examine whether

there was any terms of settlement between the parties and whether all

parties agreed for the said settlement and have acted upon.

25. The ground of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. In

paragraph 29 of the plaint, the plaintiff has made the following

averments which reads as follows:

"29. The defendant no. 1 and 2 is seeking to deny the plaintiff's lawful shares in the joint companies, properties, businesses and assets on frivolous and baseless grounds by contending that the defendant nos. 8 to 15 are juristic entities and cannot be subject matter of joint properties and cannot be subjected to partition. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are also illegally contending the independent right, title and interest of their family members, some of such companies, businesses, properties and assets which are in fact jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2. In addition thereto, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are taking shelter of an advice of a mediator namely, Sourabh Jalan which has communicated

to the parties by way of an email dated 24th November, 2012 which is not at all binding upon the plaintiff. Thus, the question of acting in terms of such email by the plaintiff does not and cannot arise."

In the said paragraph, the plaintiff has categorically stated that

the defendant nos.1 and 2 are taking shelter of an advice of the

mediator, namely, Sourabh Jalan but the same is not binding upon the

plaintiff. The said avernment is to be decided during trial only.

26. The defendants have raised second issue that with regard to the

prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the plaint, this Court is not having

jurisdiction in terms of Section 430 read with Sections 241 and 242 of

the Companies Act, 2013. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the

defendant nos. 1 and 2 avoided to disclose accounts and other

information of all companies under their control, since 2008 onwards.

The defendant nos.1 and 2 fraudulently transferred 12,02,900 shares

of the plaintiff by forging signature of the plaintiff on share transfer

forms, after removal of the plaintiff from the directorship of six

companies. The defendant nos.1 and 2 along with the defendant nos. 6

and 7 fraudulently transferred the shares of Mahant Vanijja Private

Limited, Raga Commercial Private Limited, Paragon Infrastructure

Private Limited and Paragon Fincrop Private Limited in favour of the

defendant nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 and their children and amalgamated Raga

Commercial Private Limited, Paragon Infrastructure Private Limited,

Paragon Fincrop Private Limited with Mahant Vanijja Private Limited,

Paragon Finance Limited, Basera Abasan Private Limited, Kit

Commercial Private Limited and Naman Barter Private Limited.

27. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7

have removed jewelries, cash and other assets including documents

and files of Radheshyam Gupta. The defendant no. 2 operated the bank

account of the plaintiff and his wife in the HDFC Bank by forging

signatures. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1

misappropriated the funds of the Trust created by father during his life

time under the name and style of "Shri Dindayal Smriti Trust" and has

not disclosed the accounts for the same and forged the signatures of

the plaintiff on several occasions with respect to the banking

transactions.

28. It is settled law that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain

any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the National

Company Law Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to

determine the same. In the present case, the plaintiff has not only

claiming the shares or directorships in the company. The plaintiff has

originally filed the present suit declaring his right over the properties

and assets of his deceased father. Once if the Court declared the share

of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be at liberty to take appropriate steps

before the Learned Tribunal. It is not the case of the defendants that all

the prayers made by the plaintiff is not maintainable before this Court.

Under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot reject part of the

plaint. In other words, the plaint is to be rejected as a whole or not at

all in exercise of power under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.

29. In the case of Aruna Oswal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that the dispute as to inheritance of shares is eminently a civil dispute

and cannot be said to be a dispute as regards oppression and/or

mismanagement so as to attract the Company Court's jurisdiction.

30. As regard to the cause of action, it is the case of the plaintiff that the

defendant nos. 1 and 2 deny the lawful shares in joint companies,

properties, businesses and assets. The defendant nos.1 and 2 are

taking shelter of an advice of a mediator but the plaintiff has

categorically denied that the same is not binding upon the plaintiff. It is

also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have

refused to provide account for the profits, gains and income arising

from the joint properties, businesses and assets. Particulars of the

properties, businesses and assets are described in Annexure "B" of the

plaint.

31. Under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Court

has jurisdiction to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of

action, where the relief claimed is undervalued and the valuation is not

corrected within a time as fixed by the Court, where insufficient court

fee is paid and the additional court fee is not supplied within the period

given by the Court, and where the suit appears from the statement in

the plaint to be barred by any law. Rejection of the plaint in exercise of

the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code would be on

consideration of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4

SCC 467, the Hon'ble Court has held that if on a meaningful, not

formal, reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless,

in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court should

exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to

see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. In Roop Lal

Sethi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill reported in (1982) 3 SCC 487, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the plaint discloses no

cause of action, it is obligatory upon the court to reject the plaint as a

whole under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, but the rule does not

justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint. Therefore, the

High Court could not act under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 for striking down certain paragraphs nor the

High Court could act under Order VI, Rule 16 to strike out the

paragraphs in absence of anything to show that the averments in those

paragraphs are either unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious, or that they

are such as may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of

the case, or constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. In ITC

Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal reported in (1998) 2 SCC

70, it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with

an application filed by the defendant under Order VII, Rule 11 of the

Code is to find out whether the real cause of action has been set out in

the plaint or something illusory has been projected in the plaint with a

view to get out of the said provision. In Saleem Bhai v. State of

Maharashtra reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that the trial court can exercise its powers under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Code at any stage of the suit before registering the

plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the

conclusion of the trial and for the said purpose the averments in the

plaint are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written

statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. In Popat and

Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association reported

in (2005) 7 SCC 510, the Hon'ble Court has culled out the legal ambit

of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code in these words: "There cannot be any

compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the

language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted

it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to

which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It

is not permissible to cull out a sentence of a passage and to read it out of

the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the

form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it

stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent

grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered

primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At

the same time, it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach

should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities".

32. This Court finds that the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause of action

for filing of the suit. In view of the above, this Court did not finds any

merit in the application filed by the defendant nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 under

Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

33. Accordingly, G.A. No. 5 of 2023 is dismissed.

(Krishna Rao, J.)