Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Plaintiff-respondent M/s Khaybar Transport Pvt. Ltd. is a company. It was granted a licence to run a dispensing pump under an agreement dated 15th December, 2005 by the defendant-revisionist Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The said agreement was terminated on 29.5.2008. The order of termination of the licence was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent by filing a Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2008. The writ petition was dismissed on 3.6.2008 on the ground of alternative remedy observing that the plaintiff-respondent has an effective alternate remedy of filing a civil suit before the civil Court concerned. On the basis of the observation made in the above order, plaintiff-respondent instituted Original Suit No. 1984 of 2008 claiming two reliefs. First, for the issuance of decree of declaration declaring the cancellation of the licence to be illegal, arbitrary, void, and ineffective. Secondly, to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-revisionist to restore the supply of diesel and petrol to the outlet of the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The said suit is being contested by the defendant-revisionist wherein a written statement has been filed inter alia taking objection that the suit is barred by the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. as well as by Sections 41 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. Accordingly, issues were framed on 27.7.2009 and the issue No. 3 happens to be as to whether the suit is barred by Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

4. The defendant-revisionist also moved an application on 11.1.2010 paper No. 14 Ga for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The termination of the licence is not liable to be challenged in civil Court in view of certain decisions of the higher and superior Courts. The application was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 25.2.2010, which order was challenged by the defendant-revisionist in Civil Revision No. 187 of 2020 before the Court. The revision was allowed and the matter was remanded vide order dated 7.4.2010 as the Court was of the opinion that it was passed without application of mind.

5. On remand the application has again been rejected vide impugned order dated 1.6.2010.

6. The defendant-revisionist has again come up in revision challenging the order dated 1.6.2010 passed by the Court below refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and deciding Issue No. 3 aforesaid in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

7. I have heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Iqbal Ahamad, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

8. Sri Padia, has argued that the suit is barred by Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the reliefs prayed for in the suit cannot be granted in view of the provisions of Sections 52 to 64 of the Indian Easement Act 1982. He therefore, submitted that the Court below has materially erred in exercise of jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the defendant-revisionist under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. by totally misconstruing the various authorities on the point.

9. On the other hand, Sri Qadeer, in reply has submitted that the suit is not barred by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. For the purposes of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. only the averments made in the plaint are to be looked into. The plaintiff is entitle to amend the reliefs claimed and even the Court has sufficient power to mould the reliefs and as such at this stage it cannot be inferred that the suit is barred by any statutory provision and is not maintainable.

10. It is important to note that the civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except the suits which are either expressly or impliedly barred. This is the mandate contained in Section 9 of the C.P.C. which is reproduced hereinbelow :

9. Courts to try