Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J
Josu Devassia – Appellant
Versus
Dhanesh – Respondent
CRP NO. 64 OF 2024
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Roy Chacko
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to address specific rule 11(a) contention warrants remand. (Para 1 , 2) |
ORDER
The original petition has been filed challenging an order dated 01.12.2023 in I.A.No.5/2023 in O.S.No.283/2022 on the file of Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala. The prayer in I.A.No.5/2023 was to reject the plaint on the ground that no cause of action was made out, invoking Order VII Rule
11(a) of CPC.
2. The respondents objected to the petition. The trial court appears to have considered the prayer as one filed on the ground of resjudicata. The case was considered under Order VII Rule 11 (d) and dismissed, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vishal Kanth (AIR 2021 SC 380 2) and Prem Kishore v/s Brahm Prakash (2023 SCC onLine SC 356). It is apparent that the court has proceeded under a wrong premise and did not consider the question under Order VII Rule 11 (a). The petitioner's contention is that in the judgment in O.S.No.635/2017, it has been declared that the sale deeds relied on by the plaintiffs for claiming title over the plaint schedule properties are not binding on the properties scheduled in the plaint in O.S.No.635/2017. Since the court did not even consider the issue under Order VII Rule 11 (a), the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
The original petition is allowed. Order dated
01.12.2023 in I.A.No.5/2023 in O.S.No.283/2022 on the files of the Principal Munisiff Court, Cherthala is set aside. The trial court is directed to reconsider the matter with specific reference to Order VII Rule 11 (a) and pass necessary orders.
