IMPORTANT POINT
Averments made in plaint prima facie would indicate cause of action for suit for being tried.

Aravind Kumar, J.—Defendants revision petition assailing the order passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belgaum, dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC is called in question.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sri Rajshekhar Gunjalli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He would vehemently contend that trial Court committed a serious error in rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the CPC seeking for rejection of the plaint, inasmuch as, suit in question which has been filed by the plaintiff does not disclose the cause of action and as such, frivolous suit ought not to have been entertained by the trial Court and it ought to have allowed the application filed by the defendants and rejected the plaint.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the trial Court for entertaining an application tiled by defendants under Order VII, Rule 11(a). Averments made in the plaint alone has to be looked into and no amount of plea put forward by the defendants either in the written statement or in an application filed independently thereof can also be looked into for purposes of considering the prayer for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 (a). For this proposition, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mayar (H.K) Ltd. and others v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V.Fortune Express and others, AIR 2006 SC 1828 : 2006 AIR SCW 863 can be looked up.

4. In the instant case, plaintiff has sought for declaration to declare that General Power of Attorney executed by defendants 1 to 6 dated 23.6.2001 and 10.6.2004 is an irrevocable Power of Attorney and they had no right or authority to revoke the said General Power of Attorney till all the acts, deeds and things enumerated therein are completed and other consequential relief’s. In support of prayers sought for in the suit, plaintiff has pleaded that the cause of action for the suit arose on 13.1.2012 when defendants published a public notice in the newspaper ‘Pudhari’. The specific plea raised in the plaint with regard to cause of action for filing the suit in question reads as under:

“The cause of action for filing this suit has arose on 13.1.2012 when the defendants published public notice in newspaper Pudhari cancelling the Irrevocable General Power of Attorneys executed by the defendant 1 to 10 dated 23.6.2001 and 10.6.2004 and the same is continued thereafter.”

5. As already noticed hereinabove, plaint can be rejected only when the cause of action pleaded in the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in respect of which plaintiff is seeking the relief. Only then Order VII, Rule 11(a) can be invoked to cut short the litigation or in other words to nip it at the bud any frivolous litigation, as otherwise, not. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that averments made in the plaint, prima facie would indicate that there is cause of action for the suit for being tried. Hence, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition. Hence, it is hereby dismissed.

However, order passed by the trial Court as affirmed by this Court would not come in the way of trial Court considering plea of the defendants with regard to entitlement of plaintiff for the relief sought for on merits at the time of Final Arguments or in other words when merits of the case is examined finally.

Revision dismissed