IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be supported by clear reasoning, and failure to provide such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The Appeal Suit arises out of the order and decree dated 06.01.2024 rejecting the appellants’ plaint in O.S. No. 80 of 2021 on an Application made by the defendants (respondents herein) under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.).

2. The appellants (plaintiffs) had approached this Court in an earlier Appeal Suit in 2023 (A.S. No. 327 of 2023) challenging the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint on the respondents’ Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. A Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the said Appeal by the judgment dated 09.10.2023 by setting aside the order dated 05.06.2023, impugned in that Appeal, and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for re-examining the Application filed by the respondents/ defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

3. The present Appeal is therefore from a second-look at the respondents’ Application for rejection of the appellants’ plaint on the ground of the plaint not disclosing a cause of action and being barred by law: Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the C.P.C. respectively.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Trial Court misdirected itself in considering the pleadings and material of the respondents/defendants in determining whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Counsel submits that the impugned order does not contain any reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the appellants’ plaint should be rejected.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submits that the Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the plaint and only considering the pleadings and documents in the plaint. Counsel submits that the impugned order contains reasons in support of the conclusion.

6. We have considered the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing the Application filed by the respondents and rejecting the Suit filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

7. The Trial Court recorded the case made out by the defendants (respondents herein) in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the impugned order. Paragraph 2 consists of sub-paragraphs (a-g). The Trial Court considered the allegations made in the plaint that the ‘Society’ (plaintiff No. 2) passed a Resolution in the General Body Meeting dated 15.06.1981 to establish a Trust namely Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust, Tandur and that an unregistered Trust Deed dated 27.01.1982 was executed by the President, Vice-President of the Society with 2 of the Trustees. The Society subsequently executed a registered Deed of Trust dated 16.05.1994 represented by the Secretary, the Chairman/Managing Trustee and other Trustees. The Chairman/Managing Trustee executed a Deed of Reconstitution of Trust on 19.01.2012 consisting of himself and other Trustees including a permanent Trustee. The Trial Court proceeded to record that the Reconstituted Trust Deed dated 19.01.2012 states that the plaintiff No. 2 (Society) shall not interfere in the activities of the Trust and in the case of any vacancy, the remaining Trustees shall make necessary appointments to fill up the vacancy. The Trial Court also recorded that the person who was claiming to be the Managing Trustee of the Trust was not nominated or appointed as a Trustee and hence the said person has no locus standi to sue as the Managing Trustee or on behalf of the Trust. The Trial Court further recorded the allegations in the plaint regarding the creation of a duplicate Trust by the plaintiff No. 1 without any authority and that the original Trust was established by the unregistered Deed of Trust dated 27.01.1982 which is entirely different from the subsequent reconstitution established vide a Deed of Trust dated 11.12.2020.

8. In the continuing sub-paragraphs of paragraph 2, the Trial Court referred to an impleadment petition filed by the person cl