Gupta Transport Corporation vs Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Textiles ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21746 Mad

                                                                             C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 29.10.2021

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                           C.R.P.(NPD).No.779 of 2019
                  Gupta Transport Corporation,
                  Rep. by its Sole Proprietor,
                  Mr.Shiv Kumar Jindal,
                  196-A, Demellows Road, 1st Floor,
                  Chennai 600 112.
                                                                                      ... Petitioner
                                                         Versus

                  Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Textiles (Arni) Ltd.,
                  Represented by its Technical Director Thiru.R.Padmanabhan,
                  Ranganathapuram, Arni Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu.
                                                                               ... Respondent

                  PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                  India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2018 in
                  I.A.No.6 of 2017 in O.S.No.9 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional
                  District Judge Court, (Fast Track Court), Arni, Tiruvannamalai District and
                  allowing rejection of plaint in O.S.No.9 of 2017.


                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Tayal

                                        For Respondent     : Mr.Arun Anbumani



                  1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

                                                     ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair

and decreetal order dated 30.11.2018 in I.A.No.6 of 2017 in O.S.No.9 of

2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Court, (Fast Track

Court), Arni, Tiruvannamalai District and allowing rejection of plaint in

O.S.No.9 of 2017.

2.Heard both sides.

3.The Revision petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in

O.S.No.18 of 2012, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast

Track Court), Arni, Tiruvannamalai District. The petitioner upon its

appearance in the year 2013 filed petition to reject the plaint Under Order 7

Rule 11 of C.P.C. The suit was renumbered as O.S.No.9 of 2017 on the file of

the Additional Judge, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Arni,

Tiruvannamalai, which was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of recovery of

damages of Rs.16,50,000/-. In that suit, the defendant had filed a written

statement that he filed an I.A.No.58 of 2013, new I.A.No.6 of 2017 to reject

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. In that application, the plaintiff

has raised his objection. On hearing both sides, the trial Judge dismissed the

said application. Aggrieved by that, they have filed the revision petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the suit was filed by the wrong plaintiff as they are not a owner of the

goods which were said to be damaged and those goods were transported by

one Suraj Corporation, who is the purchaser of the goods from the plaintiff, is

the original owner. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming damages

against this defendant as such is not maintainable and also contended that

even if any damages arise, notice should be issued as required under Section

16 of Carriage by Road Act 2007 and Section 10 Carriers Act 1865. So he

filed an application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. But

the trial Judge without considering this legal aspect erroneously dismissed the

petition. Hence, he prayed to allow this revision.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff

would submit that the textiles corporation transporting their cotton yarn and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

fibre yarn booked to lorry bearing registration No.AP-10W-0268, dated

08.06.2009 to Bhiwandi to be delivered to M/s.Suraj Corporation, Mumbai.

The goods namely cotton and fibre long bundles are loaded in the said lorry

from plaintiff's company on 08.06.2009 and the lorry goods left on the same

day to deliver the yarns to plaintiff customer at Mumbai. But during the

Journey on 10.06.2009, the driver parked the lorry with goods at Kuditini

near Hospet on the roadside and went to his name and during night time, the

lorry caught fire and the cotton yarn and fibre yarn bundles burnt into ashes.

But immediately after the said accident, the defendant Corporation issued a

notice. There were exchange of notices between the parties and the last of the

said notice was 16.02.2012.

6.Relying on the invoice dated 08.06.2009, the learned counsel

for the respondent submits that the goods were only transported to the

defendant Corporation through the Suraj Corporation, Mumbai and they also

under the invoice No.371 to 374 for a sum of Rs.16,47,883/- and also

requested them to send Demand Draft for goods. He further submits that on

the date of transportation of goods, the plaintiff is the owner of the goods and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

therefore, so the objection raised by the defendant that Suraj

Corporation/purchaser is the owner of the goods is not acceptable and also

contended that immediately after the said incident, e-mail was sent by the

defendant Corporation about the alleged incident and also subsequently

issued another notice dated 17.08.2009 mentioning about the accident, for

which, they agreed to pay part of the damages. On that promise only, they

were waiting for all these days and finally the defendant refused, which

prompted the plaintiff to come forward with the suit.

7.On considering both submissions and perused of the provision

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which speaks statutory requirements as follows:

11.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 under-valued,

and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct

the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to

do so;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

(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;

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the

provisions of rule 9:]

[provided that the time fixed by the Court for the

correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite

stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for

reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was

prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from

correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-

papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the

Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

grave injustice to the plaintiff.]

8.The main objection raised by the revision petitioner is that the

plaintiff herein is not the owner of the goods and therefore he is not entitled to

file the suit and another objection raised by the defendant is that no

pre-notice was issued under Section 16 of the Road Carriage Act, which is

mandatory one. As rightly pointed out by the plaintiff's counsel that after

filing of the written statement alone, he filed this application to reject the

plaint. Furthermore, on perusal of the averment mentioned in the affidavit to

reject the plaint, he took almost all the defence which he raised for the written

statement. In support of his contention, the revision petitioner is relying on

the following judgments:

(i) AIR 1990 SC 1753 reported in M/s.Marwar Tent Factory

Vs Union of India and others

(ii) 2010-2L.W.797 reported in All India Transport Company

represented by its General Manager, 305, Veena Chambers, 4th

Clave Road, Dhane Bunder, Bombay – 400 009.

9.A perusal of these judgments clearly reveals that on full trial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

before the trial Court, the decree was passed which was challenged before this

Court by way of appeal. So the judgments relied on by the learned counsel

for the revision petitioner do not apply to the facts of the case, for the reason

that as per the contention of the revision petitioner, the plaintiff is not the

owner of the goods, which was strongly objected by the plaintiff stating that

on the date of transporting the goods, no amount was paid in respect of the

said goods and so they claimed that they are the owner of the goods.

10.Secondly, another objection raised by the revision petitioner is

that no notice was issued under Section 16, which is mandatory provision

under the Road Carriage Act for claiming damages. This was objected by the

plaintiff stating that immediately after the incident, e-mail was sent by the

defendant Corporation. Subsequently, notice was issued wherein, the

defendant even agreed to pay the part of the damages. But this fact was also

denied by the defendant carrier. Therefore, the entire plaint averments were

denied by the defendant in his written statement.

11.The defence raised in the written statement are to be proved

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

by adducing both oral and documentary evidence. The facts which are

disputed by adducing oral and documentary evidence were rightly appreciated

by the trial Court, which calls for no interference by this Court.

12.Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed as

devoid of merits. The trial Judge is directed to dispose of the case within a

period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the

parties are entitled to prove their claim without prejudice to their contentions.

29.10.2021

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ub

To The Additional District Judge Court, (Fast Track Court), Arni, Tiruvannamalai District

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD).No.779 of 2019

ub

C.R.P.(NPD).No.779 of 2019

29.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis