The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaint must disclose cause of action, and the plaintiff must inform the defendant of specific amounts not paid and make a demand for payment to constitute disclosure of cause of action.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. This revision application challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vasco on 02.11.2015 in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/2014/A, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint. A suit has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, claiming that under the contract given by the petitioner to the respondent for carrying out repairs to vessels, different bills were raised upon the petitioner claiming various amounts from the petitioner. These bills have been given in details in paragraph 4 of the plaint. According to the respondent, the total amount of these bills is Rs.22,08,196/- against which, the respondent admits that he has received the payment of Rs.9,94,619/- from the petitioner. The respondent claims that as the remaining amount is still outstanding, the respondent has filed a suit for recovery of amount of Rs.12,13,577/-.

3. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 contending that the averments in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action and it is not known as to when the amount of Rs.12,13,577/- was claimed and demanded by the respondent from the petitioner and when the same was refused by the petitioner. This application was resisted by the respondent submitting that the averments in the plaint are clear enough to disclose the cause of action in the suit.

4. After hearing both the sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that issue of bar of limitation would have to be decided after framing of issue and the perusal of the plaint clearly showed that there was cause of action to file the suit. Not satisfied with this order passed on 02.11.2015, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Application.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the paper book of this application. The only question that arises for my determination is that, “Whether the discretion exercised by the learned Senior Civil Judge in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is perverse and arbitrary ?”

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the averments made in the plaint to support his argument that nowhere the plaint discloses any cause of action to file the present suit. It is submitted that there has to be some demand made by the plaintiff/respondent, which is refused by the petitioner/defendant. It is further submitted that this is the basic ingredient that goes into the bundle of facts constituting cause of action in a suit of the present nature and it is lacking and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected for non disclosure of cause of action.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the cause of action is clearly disclosed by the averments made in the plaint itself and it is evident from the pleadings contained in paragraphs 4, 8, 9 and 11 of the plaint. He submits that it has been very specifically stated by the respondent that various bills totalling 11 in number have been raised from time to time by the respondent, upon the petitioner and from out of the total amount of these bills, which is of Rs.22,08,196/-, the petitioner has only paid an amount of Rs.9,94,619/- and the remaining amount of Rs.12,13,577/- is still outstanding against the petitioner. He submits that in the light of the facts that the bills were raised, that some amount of these bills i.e. the amount of Rs.12,13,577/- has been averred to be outstanding against the petitioner, together with the fact that the work of repairs was carried out to the vessels by the respondent would themselves show that cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. He submits that if, any amount is stated to be outstanding in a running accoun