AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel appearing for opposite party.
By means of this revision, the revisionist has come to this Court challenging the order passed on an application moved by the revisionist in the suit filed under O.37 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The application was rejected by the order impugned by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar. The ground for rejection of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC as moved by the revisionist before the Civil Judge was that ''other court'' as defined under Order 37, Rule 1 (b) CPC since not notified by the High Court to be a court has no jurisdiction as the other court and secondly, the ground taken for rejection of plaint was that Rakesh Sharma who had filed the suit on behalf of the Company was not duly authorised to file such a suit which is a mandatory requirement under Order 29, Rule 1 CPC as no resolution of Board of Directors has been filed and , therefore, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) committed error of law in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 .
Initially, an interim order was granted by this Court by order dated 6.8.2013 which is continuing till date. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaint should be rejected as the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and secondly, the resolution of the company has not been filed authorizing Rakesh Sharma to prosecute the proceedings cannot be accepted. The court mentioned in Order 37, Rule 1 (b) CPC as other court, the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction to decide the dispute under O.37 CPC because the High Court has not declared or notified the court of Civil Judge to be other court. Order 37, Rule 1 (b) CPC only gives power to the High Court to either restrict or expand the jurisdiction of the other court and no where from the plain reading of the provisions it appears that the High Court must notify the court of Civil Judge to be the ''other court'' for a suit under O.37 CPC.
So far as the allegation of the revisionist that the suit is barred by Order 29, Rule 1 CPC also cannot be accepted at this stage for consideration of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint as it is clearly provided that from statement made in the plaint, the jurisdiction of particular court is barred by law. The ground that the resolution of the company has not been filed for pursuing the suit by Rakesh Sharma cannot be a statement in the plaint which bars the jurisdiction of the court.
As such, in my view, there is no error in the order impugned. The revisionist may contest the suit in accordance with law. The revision has no merit and is rejected.
However, it is always open for the revisionist to take these grounds mentioned in this revision in the written statement.