The court established that the presence of a defendant's name in the plaint is sufficient to establish a cause of action, and the application of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must focus solely on the plaint's content, not the defendant's defense.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.

2. The above petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 14/9/2022 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.1 filed in O.S.No.5/2020.

3. The respondent herein has filed O.S.No.5/2020 against the defendants therein seeking to recover a sum of Rs.43.58 crores as also cost of the suit jointly and severally from the defendants. The petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 entered appearance in the said suit and filed I.A.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) to reject the plaint against defendant No.1 since no cause of action arose to institute a suit against the petitioner/defendant No.1. The said application in I.A.1 was opposed by the respondent - State by filing statement of objections.

4. The Trial Court considering the contentions putforth in I.A.1, vide its order dtd. 14/9/2022 dismissed the said I.A.1 filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1. Being aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that pursuant to the order dtd. 14/10/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.18737/2019, the respondent has issued Government Order dtd. 2/11/2019 to take action against the officials of the State Government for having caused loss to the State exchequer. That pursuant to the Government order dtd. 2/11/2019 the suit in O.S.No.5/2020 has been filed against the four defendants. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit is not named in the Government Order dtd. 2/11/2019.

6. The contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected, inasmuch as, at paragraph No.6 of the plaint, the name of defendant No.1 is forthcoming at Serial No.3, wherein, it is shown that defendant No.1 had worked as Tahsildar between the period from 5/8/1999 to 30/6/2000. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC cannot be invoked against any one of the defendants and with regard to part of the plant. (See - Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and Another vs. Axis Bank Limited and Another - (2019) 7 SCC 158 and Sajal Glass Limited vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited - (2018) 11 SCC 780)

7. Further, the Trial Court has rightly held that for consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments of the plaint are to be considered and not defence of the defendants and that the consideration of the defendant No.1 in I.A.1 is the defence of the said defendant. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.1 filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1.

8. In view of the aforementioned, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court dtd. 14/9/2022 passed on I.A.1 in O.S.No.5/2020. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly rejected.