IMPORTANT POINT
For purpose of deciding an application under Clauses (1) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, averments in plaint are germane.

S. Panda, J.—This civil revision is directing against the order dated 20th April, 2005 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (F.T.C. No. III), Bhubaneswar in M.S. No. 3/198 of 2005/2004 rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 7(i) of the Orissa Court Fees Act for rejection of the plaint.

2. The facts, as narrated in the application, are as follows:

The present opposite parties as plaintiffs filed C.S. No.198 of 2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar for realization of damages of Rs.51,80,000/- (rupees fifty one lakh eighty thousand) from the defendants within a specified period and in default to pay the amount, interest and cost with pendente lite and future interest as per the bank’s rate. In the plaint, they alleged that in pursuance of matrimonial column published on 6.10.2002 in the English daily “The Times of India” inviting proposal for marriage of plaintiff no.1, defendant No.1 proposed for marriage of his son with plaintiff No.1. The father and brother of plaintiff No.1 came to Lucknow, the place of the defendants for negotiation. The plaintiffs further alleged that the marriage was settled with defendant No.2 and it was decided that the marriage would take place at Lucknow. While the matter stood thus, defendant No.2 gave a telephonic message that he had decided to marry an American citizen. Feeling aggrieved by the said refusal of defendant No.2 to marry plaintiff No.1, the present suit has been filed. The petitioners have filed a copy of the plaint as Annexure-1 to this revision application. Since the plaintiffs are women, they were exempted from paying the Court fees as per Section 35 of the Courts Fees Act. Notice was issued to the defendants. They appeared and filed their written statement as well as an application on 13.9.2004 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) (c) of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 7(i) of the Orissa Court fees Act before the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed their objection to the said application. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge (FTC No. III), Bhubaneswar where it was registered as M.S. No.3/1998 of 2005/2004. The Court below afresh considering the said application and the objection, rejected the defendants’ application on 20.4.2005 on the ground that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which gives rise to the suit. Correctness of the different facts and dates of cause of action stated by the plaintiffs, though denied by the defendants, can be seen only during trial of the suit. As regards non-payment of Court fees, since the plaintiffs are women they were exempted from paying the Court fees.

3. The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1-petitioner submitted that the plaint and its averments clearly reflect that defendant No.1 proposed, pursuant to the advertisement made in the matrimonial column of the Times of India, for marriage of his son. The defendants are staying at Lucknow and both the parties discussed the matter at Lucknow. The plaintiff no.1’s father and brother came to that place and letter of correspondences were made by the defendants and the proposal was at negotiation stage and nothing was fixed. Further the plaintiff No.1’s father send a notice to the defendants claiming damages of Rs.1 lakh as the proposal could not be materialized. Therefore, to avoid payment of Court fees, the father of plaintiff No.1’s set up the present plaintiffs to file the suit. No cause of action arises for the said suit as in Hindu Law negotiation of marriage is not a contract between the parties. Therefore, the correspondences made between the parties either for proposal of marriage or decision for settlement of marriage cannot be construed as a contract between the parties and breach thereof cannot inflict any legal injury nor can give rise to a legal right to be enforced under the common law forum. T