The power conferred upon the Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint is drastic and must be strictly adhered to. The Court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC only if any of the conditions incorporated in clause (a) to (f) of Rule 11 is fulfilled considering the averments made in the plaint and its accompanying documents. The Court cannot travel beyond the plaint and its accompanying documents while exercising its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)

1. The plaintiff/appellant has called in question the order dated 28.4.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 5th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 1244 of 2019 whereby at the interlocutory stage, considering the entire merit of the matter, the learned Court below suo moto rejected the plaint in limini invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the Code).

2. Sans unnecessary details, facts required to be frescoed for the purpose of effective adjudication of the appeal are as follows:

i) One Sharmistha Majumdar (in short, Sharmistha) claiming herself to be the widow of one Rana Safui filed one suit for partition, administration, injunction and damages in respect of the properties left by Rana Safui (in short, Rana), since deceased;

ii) Sharmistha claimed to have knotted matrimonial chord with Rana on 25.09.2013 under Special Marriage Act, 1954. Rana died intestate on 18.9.2019 leaving Sharmistha as his widow, defendant nos. 1 and 2 being the two daughters born out of the first marriage of Rana with a lady namely, Konika Safui (in short, Konika) and his mother, defendant no.3;

iii) Rana was a successful businessman. He used to maintain numerous accounts in SBI, HDFC, Canara and Bandhan banks and he had a good number of LICI policies and huge properties including some flats etc;

iv) Rana previously married Konika but since matrimonial disputes surfaced in their nuptial life, Rana got that marital tie dissolved and tied matrimonial knot with Sharmistha. After marriage, Sharmistha started living with Rana at 16 RD4, Greenwook Nook at premises no. 369/2, Purbachal Kalitala Road, Ward no. 106, P.S. Garfa, Kolkata-VII8. Sharmistha claimed that she was all along on good terms with defendant nos.1 and 2 and they travelled abroad and various places of interest together;

v) After death of Rana, behaviour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 towards Sharmistha completely changed and she was denied to take part in Rana’s cremation and she also came to learn that Rana’s accounts were operated and huge amount of money was transferred from Rana’s accounts to the personal accounts of those two defendants. Defendant no.1 got herself inducted as Director of BSA Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and transferred entire share thereof in the name of defendant no.1;

vi) On 25.9.2019, Sharmistha lodged a complaint with Garfa P.S. and on 24.9.2019 and 26.9.2019, she was constrained to send e-mails to various banks in which Rana maintained his accounts and also to LICI authority and those two defendants also withdrew fixed deposit accounts of Rana and defendant no.1 also changed some trade licences in her name which were earlier standing in the name of Rana;

vii) Sharmistha claimed that EMI of the flat, where Sharmistha used to live with Rana, was being paid from the fund of R.S. Construction but such payment has been stopped and names of proprietors of some concerns have also been changed;

viii) Sharmistha claimed that defendants have misappropriated a sum of Rs.3 crores 66 lacs from various banks and she claimed discoveries of all such transactions and Sharmistha claimed to be entitled to 1/4th share of all the properties, assets, money, fixed deposit amounts etc. left by Rana.

3. The Suit was initially registered as Title Suit no. 5652 of 2019 and the same was transferred to the learned Court below and was renumbered as Title Suit no. 1244 of 2019.

4. Record reveals that along with plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was also taken out by Sharmistha with prayer for interim order and by passing an ad-interim order of injunction on 23.12.2019, the learned Court below restrained the defendants from alienating, transferring and encumbering the properties of Rana and the defendants were further directed to maintain status quo in respect of assets and properties of Rana.

5. Reeti Safui (in short, Reeti), defendant no. 2 filed