The court emphasized that an application under Order VII Rule 11 must only assess the plaint's allegations without reviewing documents or defense contentions.

ORDER

This application has been filed by the applicant to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation, res judicata, and barred by law for no cause of action.

2.According to the applicant he is the first defendant in the main suit. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs who are 1 to 3 respondents herein for the relief of recovery of money and for declaration and for compensation. The suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata, limitation and for no cause of action and non-joinder of necessary parties. This Court vide order dated 26.11.2009 in Company Application Nos.1445 and 1694 of 2009 in C.P.No.103 of 1993 already negatived title and ownership of the first plaintiff and empowered the first defendant Bank to proceed with the sale of the subject property through the Recovery Officer attached to DRT II, Chennai and thereafter O.S.A.Nos.222 of 2013 and 75 of 2017 were also filed and dismissed through order dated 19.03.2020 and no SLP has been filed till date. Borrower M/s.Sethuraman Thiyagarajan Engineering Pvt Ltd had created an equitable mortgage in respect of the subject property while so the borrower had executed transfer of lease deed in favour of Lakshmi Narayana Choudhary, husband of the plaintiff. Any transaction done by the company in liquidation proceedings two years is void in terms of Section 526 of Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff has filed W.P.No.12596 of 2022 for the prayer not to bring the subject matter for auction until first plaintiff’s petition dated 06.05.2022 is disposed of and the same was dismissed. The first plaintiff has filed application in M.A.No.136 of 2009 before the Recovery Officer, DRT II, Chennai for the same relief and the same was also dismissed on 26.02.2010. Subsequently, the Writ Petition came for final hearing. The first petitioner has withdrawn the same. The plaintiff also admitted that the Recovery Officer had taken over the possession of the property on 11.09.2015. The plaintiff admitted the earlier suit C.S.No.531 of 2010 and the same was transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and pending in re-numbered O.S.No.7532 of 2010 and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. While so, the prayer sought for direction to first defendant Bank to pay sum of Rs.77,54,520/- with interest as compensation being the rental income for the suit property is baseless. Since, already this Court negatived the title and ownership of the plaintiffs in the earlier proceedings. As far as the second prayer is concerned without any justification and the third prayer is baseless. The fourth prayer is restraining the first defendant Bank from interfering with the plaintiff right to use of built up area of 3972 sqft is against the order passed by this Court in Company Application and appeals as well as the DRT proceedings. Therefore, the suit is barred by law and the plaint is liable to be rejected.

3.The respondents filed counter stating that the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C is wholly misconceived, legally untenable and liable to be dismissed in limine as the plaint discloses a clear cause of action and no statutory bar is apparent on the face of the plaint. The application proceeds entirely on the defence version, disputed facts and interpretation of earlier proceedings which is impermissible at this stage. While considering the application under VII Rule 11 C.P.C., this Court is required to look only at the averments of the plaint without embarking upon an enquiry into the correctness of the allegations or the defence of the defendant. The plaintiff clearly pleads that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid directly to the first defendant bank whether the mortgage subsisted, whether the transfer was hit by any statutory provision and the effect of such transfer are all mixed questions