Maruthamuthu vs Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, President and Finance and Administrative Officer Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order of the District Munsif Court, Attur, rejecting an unnumbered Plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a), CPC, on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action. Heard Mr. R.K. Prem Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The Petitioner filed a Plaint in unnumbered Suit (No. of 2011), on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur, praying for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Respondents from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties, without fulfilling the promises and assurances given to the Petitioner and the persons whom the Petitioner represents. After return of the Plaint and getting it re-presented on the question of maintainability, the District Munsif passed an order holding that a reading of the Plaint discloses that there was no causes of action for the Suit. As against the said order of the District Munsif refusing to take the Plaint on file, the Petitioner is before this Court.

The manner in which the Plaint has been rejected by a small order, by the District Munsif, Attur, cannot be accepted. While passing an order under Order 7, Rule 11(a), C.P.C., the Court is also obliged to give reasons as to why and how it came to the conclusion that there was no cause of action.

However, on that score, I do not wish to interfere, in view of the fact that the ultimate decision of the Court below is correct, for the reasons which I would indicate in the following paragraphs.

The Suit is said to have been filed by the Petitioner in a representative capacity, under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., for and on behalf of 34 persons, who allegedly sold different extents of land described as nine items of properties in the Plaint schedule. The description of properties sold by all the 34 persons vary from one another. The dates on which all the 34 persons executed the Sale Deeds are also different. It is not even the pleading of the Petitioner that all the 34 persons jointly entered into any single Agreement of Sale with the Respondents. Therefore, the Suit of this nature ought not to have been filed by the Petitioner, in a representative capacity. In other words, each individual seller had a different cause of action against the Defendants, in respect of the Sale Deeds executed by them. In respect of the enforcement of rights relating to properties, when the sellers are different persons, when the properties sold are different and when the Sale Deeds and the sale consideration were also different, it is not possible for the Petitioner to combine the causes of action of all persons and file a single Suit in a representative capacity. Therefore, on this ground, the Plaint filed by the Petitioner was liable to be rejected. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court below. However, this will not preclude the individuals from working out their remedies independently, without joining together, if such Suits are otherwise maintainable in law.