AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikramajit Sen, J.—In the present case the Revisionist has assailed the Order dated 23.1.2004 whereby its application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected. The Order is a detailed one running into eight pages. It is obvious to me that considerable amount of time and attention has been expended by the Trial Court in disposing of the application, which could have been better utilised in deciding the suit itself. This waste of time is further compounded by the filing of the present Revision petition. It is this recurring onslaught of litigation that has sought to be plugged by amendments to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that if the order had been decided in favor of the Petitioner the effect would have been that the suit itself could have been disposed of. The fact remains that the Petitioner has adequate remedy and opportunity to resist the suit. Reliance has also been placed on the celebrated judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Others Vs. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and Others, , to favor the view that Section 22(1) would apply only to those ''dues'' reckoned or included in the sanctioned scheme. There is no justification for taking the view that a person cannot have his claim adjudicated upon, where a ''sick company'' declines to admit its liability.
I do not find any error in the exercise of jurisdiction or any reason to exercise powers vested in this Court u/s 115 of the CPC.
The Revision petition is dismissed.