ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Gopalakrishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Thyagaraja S., learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Defendants have challenged the order in RA No.21/2021 dated 10.02.2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga whereby, learned Trial Judge has set aside the order dated 25.05.2021 passed in O.S.No.206/2020 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hosadurga, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC.

3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.206/2020 stating that plaintiffs are running a gas agency in the name and style of ‘V.R.Indane Gramin Vitarak’ by obtaining dealership from Indian Oil Company Ltd., Marking Division Bengaluru in Srirampura village and other neighboring villages within the radius of 15 kms.

3.2. Defendant who is also running a gas agency in the name and style of ‘Akshaya Bharath Gas’, Hosadurga permitted to distribute the LPG cylinders only in Hosadurga Town.

3.3. In respect of distribution of the gas cylinders, there were differences between plaintiffs and defendant. Therefore, plaintiffs filed a suit restraining the defendant from distributing the LPG Cylinders in Srirampura village and surrounding places.

4. The said suit was contested by defendant by filing a detailed written statement and denying the plaint averments and also questioning the plaintiff’s right to restrain the defendant from distribution of the LPG cylinders.

5. Based on the written statement contents, the Court sou-moto raised the question of maintainability of the suit and by following the principals of law enunciated in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Pnniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706, rejected the plaint by exercising the power vested in the Court under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.21/2021.

7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties in detail, noted that the Trial Court ought not to have sou-moto raised the question of maintainability of the suit and rejected the plaint. As such, set aside the order of the Trial Court by judgment dated 10.02.2022 and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this appeal.

9. Sri.Gopalakrishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that there was no bar for the Trial Court to raise the issue of maintainability of the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC and same has been passed on the contentions taken in the written statement especially noting the fact that there is no privity of the contract between the plaintiffs and defendant and plaintiffs are the distributors of Indian Gas and defendant is the distributor of Bharat Gas. Therefore, question of restraining the defendant did not arise in the suit and thus, sought for allowing the appeal.

10. Per contra, Sri.Thyagaraja, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments.

11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that while rejecting the plaint, the Court is bound to consider the contents of the plaint alone and not the defence taken by the defendant.

13. The principles of law enunciated in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Pnniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706 as referred to supra has not been properly understood by the learned Trial Judge while rejecting the plaint.

14. Accordingly, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the order of rejection of the p