Orissa High Court
Pramila Ray vs Anirudha Mohanty Opposite Party(S) on 12 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRP No.46 of 2024
Pramila Ray ..... Petitioner(s)
Mr. S.R. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
Anirudha Mohanty Opposite Party(s)
Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
ORDER
Order No. 12.03.2025
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. This is a revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908, which
has been filed by the petitioner(who is the sole defendant before the
trial in the suit vide C.S. No.1854 of 2022) against an order of
rejection of her petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for
rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Party) passed by the
learned Trial Court.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
Opposite Party(plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.1854 of 2022)
submitted that, the trial of the suit vide C.S. No.1854 of 2022 before
trial court has already been commenced and the plaintiff has already
been examined and cross-examined as P.W.1 and accordingly, the trial
of the suit has substantially been progressed.
5. All questions raised by the petitioner in her petition under
Order-7, Rule-11 of the CPC, 1908 concerning the bar of suit of the
plaintiff vide C.S. No.1854 of 2022 on the ground of barred by
limitation, lack of cause of action as well as under valuation are the
mixed question of fact and law and the same are required to be
answered in the judgment of the suit by the trial court after
appreciation of pleadings and evidence of both the sides.
6. It is the settled propositions of law that, at the time of
consideration of the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the CPC, 1908
filed by the defendant, only the averments made in the plaint are to be
seen and the court has no authority under law to look into the possible
defence plea of the defendant or written statement of the defendant.
7. In spite of the above settled propositions of law, the learned
counsel for the petitioner (defendant in the suit) submitted to assail the
impugned order passed by the trial court on the ground that, the plaint
has been very cleverly drafted by the plaintiff deliberately avoiding the
period of limitation for making the suit maintainable, which is
ascertainable from the face of plaint that, the suit is barred by
limitation. For which, according to him(learned counsel for the
petitioner), the impugned order passed by the trial court is required to
be interfered with in this revision filed by the petitioner(defendant).
8. When, as per law, the above grounds taken by the
petitioner/defendant in her petition Order-7, Rule-11 of the CPC, 1908
for rejection of the plaint, are all mixed question of fact and law and
when the trial of the suit has already been commenced, then at this
juncture, I find no justification for making interference with the
impugned order passed by the trial court in rejecting the petition under
Order-7, Rule-11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant/petitioner through
this revision filed by her(petitioner).
9. For which, it is held that, there is no merit in this revision of the
petitioner. The same must fail.
10. In result, this revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed on
contest, but, without cost.
11. Accordingly, the revision filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Jagabandhu
Designation: Personal Assistant
