The power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and the court cannot go beyond the allegations in the plaint to decide whether a cause of action is disclosed.

R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The first defendant has moved this court under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against him. Heard Mr. T.K. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/first defendant and Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. In this order hereinafter, I will refer the parties to this application, as the plaintiff and the first defendant.

2. The suit is to recover money due under a promissory note dated 22.3.2001. The fourth defendant is a private limited company, of which defendants 1 to 3 are shown to be Directors. The plaint allegation is that the first defendant is the Chairman while defendants 2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director respectively of the fourth defendant company. The grounds on which the first defendant wants the plaint to be rejected are as follows; —

“There is an allegation in the plaint that the promissory note in question was executed by the first defendant on behalf of defendants 2 to 4; the alleged consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs for the promissory note is shown to have been paid by two cheques, each for a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs drawn in favour of the fourth defendant company and that the said sum was accordingly credited into the account of the fourth defendant company; therefore the borrowal is only by the fourth defendant company; the promissory n ote on which the suit is laid, was not signed by the first defendant in his individual capacity but only for and on behalf of the fourth defendant company; the suit document itself shows that the fourth defendant company is the borrower; though the names of defendants 2 and 3 are shown as co-executants in the promissory note, yet, they have not signed in it; the promissory note was signed by the first defendant in his capacity as the Chairman of the fourth defendant company as could be seen from the document itself; there is no personal liability on the first defendant for the said borrowal by the fourth defendant company and therefore there is no cause of action.”

3. Mr. T.K. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the first defendant would state that on the above allegations found in the plaint that the borrower is only by the fourth defendant company and therefore the first defendant cannot be personally proceeded with for the liability of the company. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgments reported in Bank Of Maharashtra v. Racmann Auto Pvt. Ltd. (Volume 74) Company Cases 752) (Delhi High Court) and I.O.B. v. R.M. Marketing And Services (Volume 107) Company Cases 606) (Delhi High Court). Learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in I.T.C. Limited v. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1997 (III) C.T.C. 746) to contend that the plaint must disclose clear right to sue and the court cannot be carried away by clever drafting of the plaint creating illusions of cause of action. Learned counsel would therefore stress that once the plaint allegation shows that the borrowal in question on which the suit is laid, is prima facie shown to be by the fourth defendant company, then, it must be taken that the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action against the first defendant, since he can not be made personally liable. Contending to the contra Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that whether the plaint allegation do show a cause of action or not has to be necessarily decided only with reference to the allegation in the plaint. According to him, the entire plaint must be read as a whole to find out whether it does or does not disclose a cause of action against the first defendant. Learned counsel would then argue that unless the Court finds that on the face of the allegations in the plaint no cause of action is made out, the Court cannot exercise its power to reject the plaint. Learned counsel would then submit that the Cou