Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
C. Nanda Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Orchids Florist Private Limited - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1178 of 2022
Decided On : 23-04-2024
A plaint must disclose a cause of action, which is a mixed question of fact and law, and must be assessed holistically, not in isolation.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - The trial Court dismissed the application for rejection of plaint, finding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The defendant's claim of non-disclosure was found to be untenable. (Paras 6, 16, 20)
(B) Cause of Action - Definition and requirements - The court reiterated that cause of action is a mixed question of fact and law, proving it can occur during trial. The plaint must be read holistically to ascertain the cause of action. (Paras 12, 19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, operating a florist business since 1995, sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, who threatened to vacate the premises after issuing a notice to do so. The plaintiff has consistently paid rent and deposited a substantial security amount. (Paras 5, 5.1)
Findings of Court:
The trial Court concluded that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and the application to reject it was misconceived. The Court emphasized the necessity of a holistic reading of the plaint. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and if the trial Court erred in its decision. (Paras 6, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action, and the defendant's argument against it was unfounded. The trial Court's reasoning was cogent and warranted no interference. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed with costs.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the I Junior City Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.115 of 2021 in O.S.No.45 of 2021.
2. By the impugned order, the aforesaid application filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint was dismissed.
3. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.N.Veerender Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record.
4. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
5. The suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, etc., from visiting or interfering with the peaceful possession of the business activity of the plaintiff in the suit premises. The plaint averments, in brief, are that the plaintiff is the owner and Director of a currently running and operational retail florist business, with and under the brand name "Orchids Florist Pvt Ltd", in the suit schedule property since inception of the business in March, 1995 and are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any hindrance or interference from any one.
5.1. The suit schedule property belongs to the defendant and the same was given to the plaintiff on lease ever since 1995 for a monthly rental amount of Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, frequently and without any insistence from defendant, plaintiff has systematically and in good faith, increased the rental amount and as of the year 2020, plaintiff was paying to defendant a monthly rental amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and that ever since 1995 until today, the plaintiff has been paying the rents without any default. The plaintiff also deposited security deposit amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and fifty thousand only) with the defendant. There was also an understanding and promise that the defendant would give other alternative space for running plaintiff’s business.
5.2. While so, on 27.11.2020, the defendant issued a notice to plaintiff for vacating the said premises, for which the plaintiff has given a reply on 31.12.2020 to the defendant for extension of the lease period and despite the same, defendant and his henchmen are threatening to vacate the plaintiff from the suit premises forcefully.
5.3. That the acts of the defendant and day-to-day visits to the suit scheduled property and threatening the plaintiff that they would vacate the premises forcefully is causing lot of hardship and mental agony to the plaintiff. That if the illegal acts of the defendant are not prevented by way of permanent injunction, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship, as huge amount is involved in the business of the plaintiff which cannot be compensated by any means. Hence, the suit.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant contended that the trial Court has failed to take note of the ample pleadings and the documentary evidence available on record and passed the impugned order, which is biased and perverse; that the discretion exercised by the trial Court was not in accordance with law; that the trial Court failed to deal with regard to the effect of notice of termination dated 27.11.2020 and thus, violated the principle of fair adjudication; that the cause of action disclosed in the plaint is illusionary in nature and created though there is no cause of action in the eye of law and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action. By contending thus, the learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the Revision by setting aside the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi1 2. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali2
3. Bhargavi Constructions v.
Kothak
