The court emphasized that the plaint should be assumed to disclose a cause of action unless proven otherwise, and that the plaintiff's explanation in the plaint regarding the time taken before the Consumer Fora was sufficient to exclude the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

1. The second defendant in C.S. No. 801 of 2013 has taken out this application seeking to reject the plaint in the above suit.

2. The case of the applicant is that the suit in C.S. No. 801 of 2013 has to be rejected as the same is barred by law and also on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. According to the applicant, the cause of action for the suit is explained in paragraph 16 of the plaint wherein it is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 06.3.2004 when the plaintiff exported 17 numbers of carton of leather goods to Naples, Italy, on 30.3.2004 when a pre-alert notice was sent to the plaintiff, on 27.7.2004 when the plaintiff wrote a letter to the second defendant to hold the shipment and on 11.8.2004 when the plaintiff had lost the goods and on 19.9.2013, the date of which the suit was filed. The main contention of the applicant is that the suit ought to have been filed on or before 11.8.2007 whereas it has been filed only on 19.9.2013 and, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.

3. It is further stated in the application that the plaintiff had filed O.P. No. 659 of 2005 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai South for the suit claim. When the same was returned for want of jurisdiction, it was re-presented and numbered as C.C. No. 20 of 2007 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The second defendant/applicant also claims to have filed M.P. No. 80 of 2007 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the claim was based on commercial transaction. When the complaint was listed for hearing on 14.10.2011, the plaintiff herein did not appear and hence, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. Challenging the same, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in F.A. No. 489 of 2008 and the same was withdrawn by the plaintiff with a liberty to file a suit in the Civil Court agitating the questions raised in the appeal, along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay for the time spent before the Consumer Fora.

Based on the said liberty granted by the National Commission, the plaint has been filed before this Court. However, there is no separate application filed by the plaintiff to exclude the time taken in the bona fide prosecution of the complaint before the Consumer Fora. Therefore, it was contended that the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC as there is no cause of action and the same is barred by limitation.

4. The plaintiff/first respondent in the above application has filed its counter affidavit narrating the sequence and the events prior to the filing of the present Application before this Court. The first respondent also contended that no separate application is required to claim the exclusion of the time spent in the Consumer Fora under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as it has been explained clearly and categorically in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the plaint about the time taken by them in prosecuting before the Consumer Fora and that in view of the liberty granted by the National Commission, the said time is excluded. Therefore, according to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit is filed within time.

5. Heard Mr. M. Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/second defendant and Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff and perused the records.

6. The only question that has to be decided in this application is whether the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC.

7. Clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with disclosure of cause of action and Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the bar of the suit by any law. The idea undermined in clause (a) is that when no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, the Court will not unnecessarily protract and the party should not be unnecessarily harassed in the suit. Therefore, when there is no cause of action, the court has power t