Patna High Court C.Misc. No.959 of 2016 (2) dt.27-10-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.959 of 2016

======================================================

Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Ors

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Sheo Nath Singh

.... .... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pancham Lal Jaiswal, Adv.

: Mr. Raju Kumar Goswami, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR

SAHOO

ORAL ORDER

2

27-10-2016

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

Perused the impugned order dated 02.05.2016 passed

by the Sub Judge-VII, Saran at Chapra in T.S. No. 368 of 2015,

whereby the learned court below refused to reject the plaint under

Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

3.

It appears that the respondents filed suit for

injunction. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule

11 C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint on three grounds.

Firstly, that the plaintiff has not disclosed the cause of action.

Secondly, that the suit is not properly valued and thirdly, that the

plaintiff has not paid the proper court fee.

4.

So far first ground is concerned, it may be mentioned

here that the Order 7 Rule 11(a) C.P.C. provides that if the plaint

does not disclose a cause of action, the paint has to be rejected.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.959 of 2016 (2) dt.27-10-2016

The plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has

not mentioned cause of action. So far the second and third grounds

are concerned, those are not mentioned in the provision for

rejection of the plaint. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with

impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Thus this

civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

brajesh/-

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)

U