Point of Law : Jurisdiction of the court to take action under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC can arise only in case where the pleadings in the plaint are sufficient to disclose the bar to the suit, and not otherwise Jurisdiction can be exercised at any stage of the suit, however, the decision under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC has to be on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. The impugned order passed by the court below rejecting the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rules 11(a) and (d) respectively of the Civil Procedure Code is running in 67 pages. We wonder how many pages it would have taken for the Presiding Officer to dictate a full-fledged judgment disposing of the suit on merits. We are not able to understand why repeatedly the very same mistakes are being committed by the courts below while deciding the applications under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Why the courts below are not ready to apply their minds before passing an appropriate order in accordance with law? This very bench in last four months of the present sitting must have passed not less than 25 orders explaining the true purport and scope of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, but all in vain. We have now started gathering an impression that plaints are being rejected mechanically only with a view to earn appropriate points as rejecting a plant is as good as deciding the whole suit. We hope that such impression in our mind is erroneous and not true.

2. This Appeal is at the instance of the original plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Navsari, dated 21st March 2020 below Exhibit 142 in the Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2014 instituted by the appellant herein, by which the court below rejected the plaint substantially on the ground that the suit instituted by the plaintiff fails to disclose any cause of action and the suit otherwise also is time barred.

3. The facts giving rise to this Appeal may be summarised as under :

4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein shall be referred to as the original plaintiff and respondents herein shall be referred to as the original defendants.

5. The Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2014 instituted by the plaintiff pertains to a parcel of land with superstructure on it in the form of a cinema theater situated in the Navsari town of the State of Gujarat.

6. The plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act. A partnership firm by name M/s.Natraj Theater came into existence in the year 1971. On 26th May 1994, the said partnership was reconstituted and consisted of sixteen partners. The suit property was of the ownership of the said partnership firm and conducted the business of exhibiting films at the said Theater. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1995 on account of financial constraints all the sixteen partners of the firm agreed to transfer their shares in the partnership firm as well as the suit property in favour of the plaintiff company, namely the Bardoli Shreerang Exhibitors on 7th October 1997. Five partners of the firm executed an agreement to sell their shares in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff company. Nine more partners, and later on, the remaining two partners, also executed similar agreements in favour of the plaintiff company. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 20th March 1998, all the sixteen partners of the firm jointly executed a notarized confirmation deed in favour of the plaintiff company and admitted to have executed an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of the company during the period between May and July 1998. Eleven out of the sixteen partners executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff company transferring their shares in the suit property in favour of the same company. According to the plaintiff, thus 70% of the share of the suit property was transferred in favour of the plaintiff company by virtue of such sale deed.

7. The plaintiff Bardoli Shreerang Exhibitors are also said to have filed a Civil Suit against the remaining five partners seeking specific performance of agreement to sell the property. Such a suit is stated to be pending. Five partners, namely Hi