Orissa High Court
Vani Nirmalya Das And vs M/S. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. .... Opposite ... on 26 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRP No.13 of 2019
(In the matter of an application under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure)
Vani Nirmalya Das and .... Petitioners
others
-versus-
M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. .... Opposite Parties
Ltd. And another
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar
Rout, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. B. Routray, Sr.
Advocate assisted by
Mr. B.P. Das,
Advocate(For O.P.
No.1)
Mr. S.S. Das, Sr.
Advocate assisted by
Ms. S. Modi,
Advocate(For O.P.
No.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing :22.07.2025/date of judgment: 26.08.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908
has been filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3 in the
suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) against the Opposite Party
No.1(plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) arraying
the Opposite Party No.2(defendant no.4 in the suit vide C.S.
No.594 of 2010) praying for setting aside the impugned
order dated 22.07.2019(Annexure-4) passed in the suit vide
C.S. No.594 of 2010 by the learned 2nd Additional Civil
Judge(Sr. Division), Cuttack.
2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which
prompted the petitioners (defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit
vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 pending in the court of the learned
2nd Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Cuttack) for filing of
the same is that, the Opposite party No.1 in this revision
being the sole plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.594 of
2010 against the petitioners and Opposite Party No.4 of this
revision arraying them as defendants praying for a
declaration that, the defendants have no right to deal with
the suit land in any manner and also to declare that,
defendant nos.1 to 3 have no right to create the sale deed or
any other deed of conveyance in respect of the suit land in
favour of any third party and to injunct/restrain the
defendants from executing any deed of conveyance in
respect of the suit land and to declare the RSD No.1944
dated 19.07.2010 executed by the defendant nos.1 to 3 in
favour of the defendant no.4 in respect of such suit land as
illegal, void and to declare that, said deed has not created
any title in respect of the suit land in favour of the
defendant no.4 and to injunct the defendant no.4
permanently from coming upon the suit land and from
interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over
the suit land along with other relief(s), to which, the plaintiff
is entitled for stating in the plaint that, the suit schedule
land being the Government land, the same was leased out
in favour of an unregistered firm, namely, M/s. Elbird
Hatchery through its proprietor Debi Prasad
Das(predecessor of defendant nos.1 to 3) in the year, 1987.
The predecessor of the defendant nos.1 to 3, i.e., Debi
Prasad Das was the Managing director of the plaintiff
company. In that company, the father of Debi Prasad Das,
i.e., Jadunath Das and Debendra Chhotray(on whose
representation the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company
has been filed) were the Directors.
On the basis of an amicable decision of all the
Directors/shareholders of the company, the said company,
i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery was taken over by the plaintiff
company, i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd. For which, the
suit properties of M/s. Elbird Hatchery vested with the
plaintiff company, i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd. Due
to merging of M/s. Elbird Hatchery with the plaintiff
company i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff
company applied for a term loan before the State Bank of
India, Jagatpur Branch and obtained loan in the name of
plaintiff company mortgaging the suit properties in the
Bank in order to secure such loan. Father of Debi Pradas
Das, i.e., Jadunath Das died on 06.12.2004. Thereafter,
Debi Prasad Das died on 09.06.2007. After the death of
Director and Managing Director of the plaintiff company,
i.e., Jadunath Das and Debi Prasad Das respectively, the
defendant no.1(wife of Debi Prasad Das) applied for
mutation of the suit land to her name initiating Mutation
Case No.57 of 2008 before the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi,
Choudwar. The said Mutation Case was rejected.
Thereafter, she(defendant no.1) again filed another
Mutation Case No.2473 of 2008 before the same Additional
Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar, but, the same was allowed
and RoR of the suit land was corrected to the name of the
defendant no.1. In that Mutation Case No.2473 of 2008, the
plaintiff company was not impleaded, though the plaintiff
company is the lessee of the suit land and the defendant
no.1 had managed to correct that RoR of the suit land to
her name suppressing the material facts without following
due process of law. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff
company filed another Mutation Case No.139 of 2008 before
the same Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar for
correction of RoR of the suit land to its name, but that
Mutation Case was dropped as per order dated 02.02.2009.
For which, the plaintiff company preferred a mutation
appeal vide Mutation Appeal No.29 of 2009 before the Sub-
collector, Cuttack and that Mutation Appeal No.29 of 2009
was disposed of on 26.05.2010 directing the Tahasildar,
Tangi Choudwar to prepare the RoR of the suit land in the
status of Pattadar after modifying the order passed in
Mutation Case No.2473 of 2008 and directed the plaintiff
company to approach the lease sanctioning authority for
modification of the lease order of the suit land. Accordingly,
plaintiff company approached the lease sanctioning
authority, i.e., Collector, Cuttack for modification of the
lease of the suit land, which is under process and pending
for consideration.
3. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff company came to
know that, the defendant nos.1 to 3 have sold the land of
the plaintiff company, i.e., to the suit land to the defendant
no.4 through RSD No.1944 dated 19.07.2010 illegally
behind the back of plaintiff company giving without delivery
of possession of the suit land to the defendant no.4,
because, the plaintiff company is in possession over the suit
land being the actual lessee of the same. The so-called Sale
Deed No.1944 dated 19.07.2010 said to have been executed
by the defendant nos.1 to 3 in favour of the defendant no.4
in respect of the suit land is illegal and void ab initio. For
which, the plaintiff company filed the suit vide C.S. No.594
of 2010 against the defendants praying for the relief(s)
indicated above in Para No.2 of this judgment.
In the said suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010, filed by the
plaintiff company, the defendant nos.1 to 3 filed a petition
on dated 30.11.2010 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.,
1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff
company on the ground that, the plaintiff company has no
locus standi to file the suit and there is no cause of action
for the plaintiff company to file the suit against the
defendants stating that, the plaintiff company was
incorporated on dated 19.06.1987 with the association of
three individuals, i.e., Jadunath Das, Debi Prasad Das and
Debendra Chhotray, in which, Jadunath Das was the life
time Chairman and Debi Prasad Das was the Managing
Director. After the death of Jadunath Das on dated
06.12.2004 and Debi Prasad Das on dated 09.06.2007,
their vacancies were not filled up. For which, the existing
Director of the plaintiff company became less than two.
Therefore, the plaintiff company lost its status as a Private
Limited Company as per Company Act. So, steps should
have been taken as per Section 439(d) of the Companies Act
for winding up the plaintiff company. The suit properties
were the personal properties of Debi Prasad
Das(predecessor of the defendant nos.1 to 3). As the said
Debi Prasad Das was the Managing Director of the plaintiff
company, for which, in order to secure the loan for the
plaintiff company as well as for its promotion, he(Debi
Prasad Das) had voluntarily given his private properties,
i.e., suit properties as co-lateral security to the Bank in
order to avail the loan for the plaintiff company. Therefore,
the suit properties were the personal properties of Debi
Prasad Das(predecessor of the defendant nos.1 to 3). After
the death of Debi Prasad Das, the suit properties devolved
upon his successors, i.e., defendant nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff
company was/is neither the owner nor the lessee of the suit
properties. The defendant nos.1 to 3 being the owners of the
suit properties after the death of its owner Debi Prasad Das
as his successors, they have duly and lawfully
alienated/transferred the suit properties in favour of the
defendant no.4 executing and registering the Sale Deed
No.1944 dated 19.07.2010 and giving delivery of possession
thereof in favour of the defendant no.4. Since the date of
purchase, i.e., since 19.07.2010, the defendant no.4 has
been possessing the suit properties exclusively being the
exclusive owner of the same. So, the plaintiff company has
no cause of action for filing the suit against the defendants.
The plaintiff company has no locus standi to file the suit
against the defendants, because, the plaintiff company has
lost its status as a private limited company since
09.06.2007.
4. To which, the plaintiff company objected stating that,
the provisions laid down in Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.,
1908 do not provide for rejection of plaint on the ground of
locus standi. The same issue concerning locus standi can
only be decided in the judgment after trial of the suit.
The plaint also cannot be rejected on the ground of
lack of cause of action. Because, the plaintiff company has
disclosed cause of action in Para No.19 of its plaint in a
vivid and descriptive manner. For which, the plaint of the
plaintiff cannot be held as defective for non-disclosure of
cause of action. The contentions raised in the petition
under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant
nos.1 to 3 for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff company
can only be answered in the judgment of the suit after its
trial, framing issues in respect of the same. For which, the
petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by
the defendant nos.1 to 3 for rejection of the plaint of the
plaintiff company is liable to be rejected.
5. After hearing from both the sides, learned trial court
rejected to the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the
C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant nos.1 to 3 on dated
22.07.2019 assigning the reasons that,
"entitlement of the plaintiff to get the reliefs" is a matter,
which can only be decided in the judgment of the suit after
its trial. The claim of the defendant nos.1 to 3 to reject the
plaint of the plaintiff company on the ground of non-
disclosure of cause of action cannot be acceptable under law.
Because, cause of action comprises a bundle of facts and the
same can only be ascertained after appreciation of evidence
of both the sides, which is after completion of trial.
In the plaint filed by the plaintiff company, cause of
action has been disclosed in Para No.19 of the said plaint.
For which, the plaint of the plaintiff is not bad for non-
disclosure of cause of action. Therefore, the petition under
Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the defendant
nos.1 to 3 is rejected.
6. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order
dated 22.07.2019 passed in C.S. No.594 of 2010 by the
learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Cuttack
rejecting the petition for rejection of plaint filed by the
defendant nos.1 to 3, they (defendant nos.1 and 3)
challenged the same by filing this revision being the
petitioners against the plaintiff arraying the plaintiff
company as Opposite Party No.1 and also arraying
defendant no.4 as Opposite Party No.2.
7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide C.S. No.594
of 2010) and the learned senior counsel for the Opposite
Party No.1(plaintiff) and the learned senior counsel for the
Opposite Party No.2(defendant no.4).
8. In order to assail the impugned order, the learned
counsel for the petitioners and Opposite Party No.4 relied
upon the following decisions:-
(i) Value Advisory Services P. Ltd. Vrs. Registrar
of Companies and another : reported in (2011) 165
Comp Cas-189
(ii) M/s. Nibro Limited vrs. National Insurance
Co.Ltd. : reported in AIR 1991 Delhi-25.
(iii) Rajendra Bajoria and othes vrs. Hemant
Kumar Jalan and others : reported in Civil Appeal
Nos.5819-5822 of 2021.
9. In support of the impugned order dated 22.07.2019
passed in C.S. No.594 of 2010, learned senior counsel for
the Opposite Party No.1(plaintiff) relief upon the following
decisions :-
(i) H.S. Deekshit and another vrs. M/s. Met Ropoli
Overseas Limited and others : reported in 2022
LiveLaw(SC)-703.
(ii) Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited vrs.
Ashok Vidyarthi and others : reported in (2023) SCC
Online SC-1612.
(iii) NU Vista Ltd., erstwhile known as M/s. Emami
Cement Ltd. At Kalinga Nagar Industrial Comples,
Jajpur vrs. Damodar Behera and others (decided on
31.01.2025 in CRP No.5 of 2022)
(iv) Niharkanti Mishra vrs. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik
and others (decided on 03.04.2025 in CRP No.19 of
2024)
10. On the basis of the averments made in the plaint of
the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1), the petition under Order-
7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the defendant nos.1
to 3(petitioners in this revision), objection against the same
filed by the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1 in this revision),
findings and observations made by the learned trial court in
the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 and the rival
submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the
crux of this revision is that,
whether the plaint of the plaintiff (Opposite Party No.1
in this revision) vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 is liable to be
rejected on the ground of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff
to institute the suit and non-disclosure of correct cause of
action therein by the plaintiff company ?
11. It has been clarified by the Apex Court in Para No.20
of the judgment dated 21.09.2021 passed in Civil Appeal
Nos.5819-5822 of 2021 between Rajendra Bajoria and
others vrs. Hemanta Kumar Jalan and others relied by
the learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party
No.2(defendant no.4) that,
"in order to decide a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of
the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of plaint, only scrutinizing the
averments of the plaint is required under law in order to see,
whether the suit is barred by any law and when, the plaint
does not discloses a cause of action, the court would not
permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract proceedings,
because, it is necessary to put an end to the said litigation,
so that, further judicial time is not wasted."
12. Here in this matter at hand, the defendant nos.1 to
3(petitioners in this revision) filed a petition on dated
30.11.2010 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908
praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite
Party No.1 in this revision) under the following two grounds,
i.e.,:-
(i) The plaintiff company has no locus standi
to institute the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010;
and
(ii) The plaintiff company has no cause of
action to file the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010
against the defendants.
13. It is very fundamental in law that, at the time of
consideration of a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the
C.P.C., 1908 filed by the defendant or defendants for
rejection of the plaint, only the averments made in the
plaint is to be taken into consideration, but, neither the
written statement nor any possible plea of the defendant or
defendants.
14. It is the settled propositions of law that, for taking
decision on a petition/application under Order-7, Rule-11
of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the defendant or defendants, the
court shall presume to the averments made in the plaint by
the plaintiff are true and correct.
Assuming the averments made by the plaintiff in the
plaint as correct, petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the
C.P.C., 1908 of the defendants for rejection of the plaint
shall be decided/adjudicated.
15. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Rohit Shekhar vrs. Narayan
Dutt Tiwari : reported 2010(2) Civil Court Cases-
452(Delhi) (D.B.)--That, at the time of consideration of
the application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.,
1908, plaint allegations has to be presumed to be
correct.
(ii) In a case between Pramod Gupta vrs. Ramesh
Power Product Private Ltd. and another: reported in
2013(1) Civil Court Cases-533(Delhi)--that, for the
decision on the petition/application under Order-7,
Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908, Court has to assume that,
the averments made in the plaint are true and correct
and on that basis the application under Order-7, Rule-
11 of the C.P.C. is to be decided.
So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is the duty of the courts
to assume that, the averments made in the plaint of the
plaintiff are true for deciding the petition under Order-7,
Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant or defendants
for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff.
16. Now, it will be seen, whether the first ground raised on
behalf of the defendants(petitioners in this revision) for
rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1),
i.e., the plaintiff company has no locus standi to institute
the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants is
concerned !
17. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between A Selvamani and another
vrs. D. Sundharavalli and another : reported in
(2016) SCC Online(Madras)-20565 (at Para no.50)--
That, the question of locus standi of the plaintiff cannot
be a ground for rejecting the plaint.
(ii) In a case between Ramesh Sriram Sule vrs.
Dilipraj Nirjankumar Goenka and others : reported
in 2009(1) Civil Court Cases-545(Bombay Nagpur
Bench) that, even the suit is instituted by a wrong
person, said suit could not be said to be barred by a
law, because, when the plaint is instituted by a wrong
person, it cannot be said that, the suit is barred by any
law or the Court is prevented from taking cognizance of
such a suit, because, defect in such a case can be cured
under Order-1, Rule-10 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(iii) In a case between Mega Suryaurja Private Ltd.
and another vrs. Bhanwar Singh and others :
reported in 2024(2) Civil Court Cases-377(Rajasthan)
that, suit whether maintainable in terms of law and
whether power of attorney holder has a locus standi to
prefer the suit cannot be decided on an application filed
under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
In view of the propositions of law enunciated in the
ratio of the above decisions, this first ground raised by the
defendant nos.1 to 3 (petitioners in this revision), i.e., the
plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1) is liable to be
rejected on the ground of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff
company to institute the suit cannot be sustainable under
law. For which, the reasons assigned by the learned trial
court for non-acceptance of this ground raised by the
defendant nos.1 to 3(petitioners in this revision) in their
petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for
rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff company cannot be
held as erroneous.
18. So far as the 2nd ground raised by the petitioners
(defendant nos.1 to 3) for rejection of the plaint of the
plaintiff company, i.e., the plaintiff company has no cause
of action for filing the suit against the defendants is
concerned !
Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is
essentially a question of fact.
Whether cause of action exist in the plaint of the
plaintiff or cause of action does exist therein must be found
out from the readings of the plaint.
19. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Dahiben vrs. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali(Gajra) Dead through Legal
representatives and others : reported in (2020) 7
SCC-366 that, whether a plaint discloses a cause of
action or not, for rejection of the plaint under Order-7,
Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908, is essentially a question of
fact, but, whether it does exist or does not exist must be
found out from the readings of the plaint itself.
(ii) In a case between Hardesh Ores(P) Ltd. vrs.
Hede and Company : reported in (2007) 5 SCC-614--
That, it is not permissible under law for the rejection of
the plaint under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 by
culling out a sentence or passage from a plaint.
(iii) In a case between Krishan Kumar and others
vrs. Naveen Kumar and others : reported in 2018(4)
Civil Court Cases-685(P&H) that, non-maintainability
of suit cannot be entertained under the scope of Order-
7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(iv) In a case between Smt. Y. Anisha Reddy and
others vrs. Sri K.V. Narasimha Reddy and others :
reported in 2024(1) Civil Court Cases-419(Telengana)
that, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the
ground that, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
20. It is the settled proposition of law that, the plaint can
be rejected, only when, it does not disclose cause of action.
But, when it is alleged by the defendants that, the plaint is
averred with false cause of action, the same will meet its
consequences at the end of the trial of the suit, but not
before that.
There is distinction between non-disclosure of cause of
action and non-existence of cause of action.
Non-disclosure of cause of action would fall within the
ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection
of the plaint, but, not the non-existence of cause of action.
21. When, the plaint discloses cause of action, the same
must be tried for substantial justice between the parties,
because, success or un-success of cause of action is a
matter of trial of the suit.
22. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Sadam Naga Raju vrs. Muvva
Madhavi and others : reported in 2024(2) Civil Court
cases-513(Andhra Pradesh) that, a plaint can be
rejected only when it failed to disclose cause of action
and not when it averred with a false cause of action. A
false cause of action is one that, suit will meet its
consequence at the end of suit.
(ii) In a case between Kailash Mundra vrs. Rinku
Mundra and another : reported in 2024 (3) Civil
Court Cases(Rajasthan) that, non-disclosure of cause
of action, can entail for rejection of plaint, but, when
plaint discloses cause of action, the same must be tried
for substantial justice between the parties. Success of
cause of action is a matter of trial. Petition under Order-
7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 rightly dismissed.
(iii) In a case between Kishore Kumar vrs. Ishar
Dass : reported in 2024(4) CCC-123(J&K) that, plaint
cannot be rejected for non-existence of cause of action,
but, the same can be rejected for non-disclosure of
cause of action.
(iv) In a case between Jageswari Devi and others
vrs. Shatrughan Ram(D.B.) : reported in (2007) 15
SCC-52 that, there is distinction between non-
disclosure of cause of action and non-existence of cause
of action. Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint
would fall within the ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the
C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of the plaint, but, the non-
existence of cause of action would not fall within the
ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for
rejection of the plaint.
(v) In a case between Niharkanti Mishra vrs. Nihar
Ranjan Pattnaik and others : reported in 2024(2)
CCC-37(Orissa)--Whether a plaint discloses a cause of
action or not is essentially a question of fact. Whether
cause of action does exist or does not exist in the plaint,
the same must be found from the readings of plaint
itself. If the plaint discloses cause of action, the same
cannot be rejected under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.,
1908. Because, the plaint can be rejected only on the
ground of non-disclosure of cause of action, but, not on
the ground of non-existence of cause of action.
(vi) In a case between Yudhishthir Singh and
others vrs. District Judge and others : reported in
2019(2) Civil Court Cases-110(Allahabad) that, when
plaint disclosing cause of action, but, mere fact that, in
the opinion of the Judge, plaintiff may not succeed
cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. Because,
validity or invalidity of cause of action not to be decided
at the time of consideration of the petition under Order-
7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 .
(vii) In a case between Nanji Sunderji Sejpal vrs.
Vithuram Shivlal Lahoti Denagi Trust and others :
reported in 2019 Civil Court Cases-147(Bombay) that,
unless petitioner makes out a case that, the plaint in
the present case fails to disclose cause of action, there is
no question of rejection of the plaint.
(viii) In a case between Archana Mittal and others
vrs. Shikha Mittal : reported in 2021(3)Civil Court
Cases(Delhi)-261(Para No.7) that, if averments in plaint
prima facie discloses a cause of action, at that stage,
Court cannot be embark upon an enquiry on the truth
of allegations for rejection of the plaint under Order-7,
Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(ix) In a case between Sukruti Dugal vrs. Jahnavi
Dugal and others: reported in 2020(3) Civil Court
Cases-555(Delhi)(D.B.) that, once the averments made
by the plaintiff, disclosed a right to sue, the plaint could
not have been rejected for want of cause of action by
undertaking a detailed analysis of averments made
therein and going through documents filed by the
plaintiff with toothcomb to adjudge their correctness or
authenticity.
(x) In a case between Mohammad Amin Bhat vrs.
State of Jammu and Kashmir and others : reported
in 2012(9) Law digital.in-750(J&K)--Plaint can be
rejected when it does not disclose the cause of action,
but, when on perusal of the plaint, it clearly shows as to
how cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff, then
whether the same is true or incorrect is a question for
trial, but, not for rejection of plaint under Order-7, Rule-
11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(xi) In a case between Urvashiben and another vrs.
Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi : reported in
2019(1) Apex Court Judgment(S.C.)-371 that, merits
and demerits of the matter cannot be gone into at the
stage, while deciding an application under Order-7,
Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(xii) In a case between P.E. Thomas and others vrs.
Abraham Jose Rocky and others : reported in 2020(1)
Civil Court Cases-832(Kerala)(D.B.) that, the grounds
raised in an application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the
C.P.C., 1908 could be answered only after trial of the
case. Such grounds/issues cannot be pre-judged merely
by looking into the plaint issues.
(xiii) In a case between Mewa Singh and others vrs.
Tehal Singh and others : reported in 2023(3) Civil
Court Cases-202(P&H)--When, the pleas raised in the
petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for
rejection of the plaint cannot be appreciated properly
without recording evidence, then at this stage, it cannot
be said that, the plaint does not disclose any cause of
action or that suit is barred by limitation.
23. Here in this matter at hand, when in Para No.19 of the
plaint of the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company has
disclosed descriptively about the cause of action for filing of
the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants,
then at this juncture, it cannot be said that, the plaint of
the plaintiff company is bad for non-disclosure of cause of
action.
So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the plaint of the plaintiff
company filed in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010, it
cannot be held that, the plaintiff company has no cause of
action for filing the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against
the defendants. For which, the plaint of the plaintiff
company cannot be liable for rejection on the ground that,
the plaintiff company has no cause of action to file the suit
vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants.
24. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned trial
court in the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 rejecting the
petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the
defendants(petitioners in this revision) for rejection of the
plaint of the plaintiff company (Opposite Party No.1 in this
revision) cannot be held as erroneous.
Therefore, there is no justification under law for
making interference with the impugned order through this
revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3 in the
suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010).
So, there is no merit in the revision filed by the
petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3). The same must fail.
25. In result, this revision filed by the
petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3) is dismissed on contest.
The learned trial court is directed to dispose of the
suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 pending in its court as
expeditiously as possible following the directions/guidelines
of the Apex Court for early disposal of the pending suits.
26. As such, this revision filed by the petitioners
(defendant nos.1 to 3) is disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 26TH of August, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
