NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR No. 25 of 2024 • M/s Khoobram Asharam Through Dindayal Agrawal, Aged About 68 Years, S/o Late Shri Ashram Agrawal, R/o Plot Side Road, Rourkela, Tahsil And District Rourkela, Odisha,....(Defendant No. 1) --- Applicant.

Versus

1. M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel Traders Partnership Firm Registered Under Indian Partnership Act,1932, Registered No. D-Raipur-29/1218, Registration Date 24- 04-2017, Address - 15/343, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.),...(Respondent/plaintiff No. 1)

2. Rajesh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Nathu Lal Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.),...(Respondent/plaintiff No. 2)

3. Kamal Agrawal S/o Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Aged About 42 Years Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.),...(Respondent/plaintiff No. 3)

4. Pawan Kumar Agrawal (H.U.F.) Through Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Aged About

54 Years, S/o Late Shri Kushiram Agrawal, R/o Birsadahar Road, Rourkela, Tahsil And District Rourkela, Odisha,...(Respondent/defendant No. 2)

---- Respondent ……………………………………….………………………………………………

For Applicant : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondent : None.

……………………………………….………………………………………………

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

Order On Board

21/2/2024 Heard on IA No.2/2024 – Application for condonation of delay.

On due consideration, delay of 15 days in filing the instant revision is condoned. The matter is heard finally.

1. This Revision has been filed the defendant No.1 being aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No.18-B/2018, whereby, the application preferred by him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case is that respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for recovery of money on the allegations that defendant No.1/applicant borrowed loan from them on two occasions i.e. Rs.40 Lacs on 21.05.2013 and Rs.40 Lacs on 26.06.2013 and, in aggregate, Rs.80 Lacs. On the said amount 18 % compound interest was also agreed, to be paid between the parties, which shall be liable to be paid yearly and before 31^st March. The defendant/applicant paid 10 % TDS amount of the total interest part and also showed the same to his income tax return. On 31.03.2017, the defendant-Firm in the same pattern deposited the TDS amount @ 10 % i.e. Rs.1,94,435/- and further deposited Rs.51,868/- in the plaintiffs’ account of Union Bank. However, the outstanding balance still remains to tune of Rs.1,25,00,000/- as on 31.03.2017, for which, a legal notice has also been served to the defendant. When the defendant failed to pay the said amount, the plaintiffs preferred the suit.

3. In the said suit, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. raising an objection that the plaintiffs failed to establish the cause of action in the suit in terms of Order 7 Rule 1 (e) of the C.P.C., which requires that the plaint shall contain the particulars about the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose and further there is misjoinder of the parties. After hearing the parties on the said application, the trial Court observed that at present the case is at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence and further in the plaint, the date of cause of action is mentioned as ‘03.07.2017’ which the date on which legal notice was sent and inspite of such notice, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Further, it was observed that the issue with regard to nonjoinder of necessary parties can be adjudicated after framing of the issues and thereby, the trial Court rejected the application of the defendant by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant No.1 submits that the impugned order is erroneous. The trial Court has not appreciated the facts and law in the proper perspective. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the matter of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through LRs &