2013 Supreme(Raj) 2022
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Bela M.Trivedi, J.
Iqram Khan - Appellant
Versus
Nathan Khan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8502 of 2013.
Decided On : 7-11-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Nawal Singh Sikarwar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:H.V. Nandvana, Advocate.
Disclosure of cause of action is essential for a suit to proceed, and the stage of the suit may influence the court's decision on applications seeking rejection of the plaint.
Headnote:
Cause of Action - Civil Suit - The court rejected the application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose cause of action, as the evidence of the plaintiff's side was already over and the evidence of the petitioner-defendant was going on. The court found that the respondent-plaintiff had already stated the material facts as required and disclosed the cause of action, and therefore, rejected the application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing their application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, alleging that the respondent-plaintiff's suit did not disclose the cause of action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and declined to interfere with the impugned order, as the respondent-plaintiff had already disclosed the cause of action.
Issues: Challenge to trial court's order, rejection of application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, disclosure of cause of action in the respondent-plaintiff's suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of the application was based on the finding that the respondent-plaintiff had already disclosed the cause of action, and the stage of the suit at which the application was filed.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the application.
JUDGMENT
1. - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.1/2010, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant, filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.
2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for the petitioner, is that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff does not disclose the cause of action, and therefore, the plaint of the respondent-plaintiff is liable to the rejected. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal, 2010 DNJ (SC) 147 , to submit that the petition did not contain the material facts as required to be stated in terms of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Before appreciating the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is required to be stated that the petitioner-defendant had filed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose cause of action, at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiff's side was already over and the evidence of the petitioner-defendant was going on. Since the suit is at the fag end, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. Even otherwise, from the averments made in the plaint-petition, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff has already stated the material facts as required and also disclosed the cause of action. At this juncture, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court, which even otherwise, is just and proper. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case.
4. In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
