Court No. - 38

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1179 of 2023

Petitioner :- Fast Track Furniture And Interiors (India) Private Ltd. And

Another

Respondent :- Falcon Chemox Pvt. Ltd.

Counsel for Petitioner :- R. B. Tripathi,Prem Chand Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- Devid Kumar Singh,Prateek Rai

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prateek Rai,

Advocate, representing the respondents.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order

dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge,

Court No. 14, District-Ghaziabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of

2021 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-tenant

under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint.

A perusal of the plaint instituting S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 2021

indicates that the plaint discloses the cause of action

necessary to institute the suit for arrears of rent and

eviction.

The contention of the petitioner is that notice was not

validly served on the petitioner and it would be evident

from the different postal receipts filed as evidence in the

case. The postal receipt is an evidence and while deciding

an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. only

averments in the plaint are to be considered. The evidence

filed by the parties is not to be considered while deciding

as to whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order

VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

The counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument

has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court

delivered in Rajendra Bajoria & Others Vs. Hemant

Kumar Jalan & Others, AIR (2022) SC 4594. The

counsel for the petitioner relies on the observations made

in paragraph Nos. 15 and 20 of the aforesaid judgement.

Paragraph Nos. 15 and 20 of the judgement of the

Supreme Court reads as follows :-

"15. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that reading of

the averments made in the plaint should not only be formal but also

meaningful. It has been held that if clever drafting has created the

illusion of a cause of action, and a meaningful reading thereof

would show that the pleadings are manifestly vexatious and

meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, then the

court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It

has been held that such a suit has to be nipped in the bud at the first

hearing itself.

20. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the power

conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one,

and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are

required to be strictly adhered to. However, under Order VII Rule

11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the court to determine whether the

plaint discloses a cause of action, by scrutinizing the averments in

the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or

whether the suit is barred by any law. This Court has held that the

underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a

plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not

permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has

been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to

the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted."

The suit was instituted on 31.3.2021. The dispute is as to

whether the period prescribed under Section 106 Transfer

of Property Act, 1882 expires on 8.8.2020 or 21.8.2020. As

to whether notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner

was valid and served on the petitioner or not would be an

issue to be decided by the trial court on the evidence filed

by the parties and is not to be considered while deciding

the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

The petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.2.2023

Anurag/-

Digitally signed by :-

ANURAG KUMAR VERMA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad