The plaint of this suit was presented in this court on 3. 8. 1967. It was admitted by a single Judge of this court Ali J, now Honble the Chief Justice, on 24. 8 67 when he made an order for issue of summons to all the defendants.

(2) In due course, the defendants appeared and at their request, on 28. 9.67, one months time, which was later extended to 20. 11 1967 was allowed to file their written statements, when one application by defendants 6 to 10, and another by defendants 1 to 5 and 11 were filed. They were both filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to reject the plaint in limine on certain technical grounds.

(3) The application by defendants 1 to 5 and 11 only adopts the grounds as contained in the application of defendants 6 to 10; I shall, hereafter, refer to both, as one application in singular.

(4) The suit was transferred to my court by the order of the Honble Chief Justice dated 25-3-68, when counsel for the defendants submitted that their aforesaid application should first be decided. No one was allowed time to file his rejoinder, if any to the defendants application by 1. 4. 68, and the replication aforesaid was ordered to be placed bearing on 4-4- 1968. The plaintiff filed his rejoinder on 30-3-68 controverting all the points taken by the defendants in their application. Counsel for the parties were heard on the defendants application on 4-4-68 and on 5-4-68.

(5) The question that falls for consideration at present is, whether the plaint is fit to be rejected in limine because (1) it does not disclose any cause of action (2) it is barred by limitation of one Year Rule (3) it is barred by the principles of Res-judicata and (4) it is barred by law.

(7) The learned Attorney General appearing for the defendants, at the very outside, submitted that he would not press at this stage that the plaint discloses no cause of action, but he would assume the allegations therein to be correct for his present purpose. He also did not argue about the suit being barred by resjudicata and/or principle analogous to resjudicata, but he reserved his right to raise these questions at a latter stage, if need be.

(8) The learned Attorney General confined his arguments to the question of limitation, and raised another point, although not taken up specifically in the defendants application, except for a bald statement, that the suit is on the face of the plaint barred by law, that the suit is barred on the face of the plaint itself by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, because, it does not state, as it must, that notice under section 80 Civil Procedure was served on the defendants, who have all been sued for acts done by them in discharge of their official duties. He was allowed to raise this point also, provided it can be decided on a mere perusal of the plaint alone.

(2) The learned counsel, Mr. Bhasin, appearing for the plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the defendants have not as yet filed their written statement and, therefore, they should not be allowed to raise these objections at this stage. He further contended that under Order 7 Rule 11, the plaint can be rejected in limine for any of the grounds mentioned therein only at the time when the plaint is taken up for admission. But once the plaint has already been admitted by the court, as it has done in this case, it cannot be rejected in limine now on any of the grounds urged on the defendants behalf, until they have filed their written statements and appropriate issues have been framed.

(10) As for Mr. Bhasins contention that the court cannot exercise its power of rejecting a plaint after it has been admitted, there appears to be no force in it. If the Court failed to exercise its powers under Rule 11 Order 7 at the time of admitting the plaint, there is no bar to its exercising this power at a later stage, when the court is apprised of the error by the defendants even before they have filed their written statements. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document