Neeraj Bakshi vs M/s. SIEL Chemical Complex and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant no. 2-Neeraj Bakshi has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the trial Court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (in short, CPC) for rejection of plaint. Case of the petitioner is that in the suit filed by respondent no. 1-plaintiff against respondent no. 2/defendant no. 1-Company and against petitioner and proforma respondent no. 3 as defendants no. 2 and 3 being Directors of defendant no. 1-Company, the liability according to plaintiff is that of defendant no. 1-company and not of defendant no. 2 personally.

The application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-5), thereby controverting the averments made in the application.

Learned trial Court has dismissed the application (Annexure P-4) filed by defendant no. 2 vide order (Annexure P-6), which is under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the version of the petitioner pleaded in application (Annexure P-4) as noticed hereinbefore. I have carefully considered the matter. The trial Court has not decided the application (Annexure P-4) on merits thereof. On the contrary the trial Court has dismissed the application (Annexure P-4) by making following observations:

This case pertains to the year 2005 is very old and is included in the list of Samadhan cases. Issues in this case was framed on 3.1.2007 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 18.8.2012 and since then the case remained pending for evidence of the defendant. The present application has been filed on 20.08.2013 after a long span and is hereby dismissed.

From the aforesaid observations, it is apparent that the petitioner did not file the application at appropriate stage i.e. before framing of issues. On the contrary, the issues were framed on 03.01.2007 and plaintiff concluded its evidence on 18.08.2012 and thereafter defendants availed of some opportunities for their evidence and then defendant no. 2 filed this application on 20.08.2013 i.e. one year after the conclusion of the evidence by the plaintiff. It was no stage for filing application because the suit was at the fag end of the trial and all pleas raised by the parties can be adjudicated upon while deciding the suit finally.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that application filed by defendant no. 2-petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, it is expressly made clear that nothing observed in this order or in impugned order (Annexure P-6) shall affect the merits of the suit and all pleas available to the defendants including the plea raised in application (Annexure P-4) may be raised at the time of final adjudication of the suit and the same shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.