Telangana High Court

C Nanda Kumar vs Orchids Florist Private Limited on 23 April, 2024

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

          CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.1199 of 2022
ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order

dated 08.03.2022 passed by the I Junior City Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.115 of 2021 in O.S.No.45 of 2021.

2. By the impugned order, the aforesaid application filed by

defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying the Court to reject

the plaint was dismissed.

3. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri S.N.Veerender Singh, learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the entire material available on record.

4. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the

plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be

referred to as arrayed in the suit.

5. The suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction

restraining the defendant, his servants, etc., from visiting or

interfering with the peaceful possession of the business activity of

the plaintiff in the suit premises. The plaint averments, in brief, are

that the plaintiff is the owner and Director of a currently running

and operational retail florist business, with and under the brand

LNA, J

name "Orchids Florist Pvt Ltd", in the suit schedule property since

inception of the business in March, 1995 and are in possession and

enjoyment of the suit property without any hindrance or

interference from any one.

5.1. The suit schedule property belongs to the defendant and

the same was given to the plaintiff on lease ever since 1995 for a

monthly rental amount of Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, frequently and

without any insistence from defendant, plaintiff has systematically

and in good faith, increased the rental amount and as of the year

2020, plaintiff was paying to defendant a monthly rental amount of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and that ever

since 1995 until today, the plaintiff has been paying the rents

without any default. The plaintiff also deposited security deposit

amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and fifty thousand

only) with the defendant. There was also an understanding and

promise that the defendant would give other alternative space for

running plaintiff's business.

5.2. While so, on 27.11.2020, the defendant issued a notice to

plaintiff for vacating the said premises, for which the plaintiff has

given a reply on 31.12.2020 to the defendant for extension of the

LNA, J

lease period and despite the same, defendant and his henchmen are

threatening to vacate the plaintiff from the suit premises forcefully.

5.3. That the acts of the defendant and day-to-day visits to the

suit scheduled property and threatening the plaintiff that they

would vacate the premises forcefully is causing lot of hardship and

mental agony to the plaintiff. That if the illegal acts of the

defendant are not prevented by way of permanent injunction, the

plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship, as huge

amount is involved in the business of the plaintiff which cannot be

compensated by any means. Hence, the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant

contended that the trial Court has failed to take note of the ample

pleadings and the documentary evidence available on record and

passed the impugned order, which is biased and perverse; that the

discretion exercised by the trial Court was not in accordance with

law; that the trial Court failed to deal with regard to the effect of

notice of termination dated 27.11.2020 and thus, violated the

principle of fair adjudication; that the cause of action disclosed in

the plaint is illusionary in nature and created though there is no

cause of action in the eye of law and therefore, the suit is liable to

LNA, J

be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action. By contending

thus, the learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the Revision

by setting aside the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant relied

upon the following judgments:-

1. Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi 1

2. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali 2

3. Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam

Reddy 3

4. Kandla Port v. Hargovind Jasraj 4

5. Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri v. Gangaram Narayan

Ambekar 5

8. In the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the

suit can be rejected on that ground. There is no quarrel with regard

to the said proposition of law.

1 (2001) 8 SCC 233 2 (2020) 7 SCC 366

(2018) 13 SCC 480

(2013) 3 SCC 182 5 (2020) 7 SCC 275

LNA, J

9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the

following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

(1) H.S. Deekshit & Anr. v. Metropoli Overseas Limited and

Others 6

(2) G. S & Anr. v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna & Ors 7

(3) Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. v. Smt. Sulanga Bose &

Ors 8

10. A perusal of the plaint reveals that under the sub-heading

"Cause of Action" it is stated as hereunder:-

"CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 27.11.2020 the defendant have issued a notice intimating to vacate to the Suit Schedule property of the defendant and subsequently continuing wherein the defendant has visited the suit schedule property and dispossess him forcefully and also on subsequent dates, when the defendants visited the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiff that they would vacate the suit schedule property forcibly at any time."

11. Thus, in the plaint, the date of notice of termination i.e.,

27.11.2020 is clearly mentioned and it is further stated that

6 2022 SCC Online SC 2024

2023 SCC Online SC 12706,

(2022) 7 SCC 731

LNA, J

subsequent to termination of notice, the defendant had been

continuously visiting the suit schedule property and was trying to

forcefully dispossess the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff that

they would vacate the premises forcibly at any time.

12. It is settled principle that cause of action is a mixed question

of fact and law, therefore, the issue of cause of action can be

proved during the course of trial.

13. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as

under:-

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 undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(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;

LNA, J

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.

14. Thus, Order VII Rule 11 CPC lays down an independent

remedy available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability

of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on

merits.

15. The defendant should necessarily satisfy the Court that the

plaint falls under any of the grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule

11 CPC for rejection of the same.

16. In the impugned order, the trial Court observed as under:-

"It is not res integra that cause of action is bundle of facts. I am of the considered opinion that non disclosure of the date on which the defendant allegedly tried to dispossess the plaintiff cannot be termed as non- disclosure of cause of action in the plaint. I am of the considered opinion that cause of action has to be culled out from the conjoint reading of the plaint and the documents relied by the plaintiff. I am of the considered opinion that on holistic reading of the plaint, the plaint should disclose cause of action and the plaint cannot be read in truncation."

17. In the case on hand, the defendant failed to show that the

plaint falls under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) CPC for rejection. In

LNA, J

fact, the trial Court was right in observing that 'cause of action'

has to be culled out from the conjoint reading of the plaint and the

documents relied by the plaintiff and the plaint cannot be read in

truncation.

18. Further, at the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned that

under the sub-heading "Cause of action" in the plaint, the plaintiff

specifically mentioned the date of termination notice and the

subsequent regular visits of defendant to forcefully evict the

plaintiff from the suit schedule property.