AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revisional application assails an order dated September 15, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 998 of 2024 whereby the petitioner’s application seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 has been dismissed.
The opposite party has instituted Title Suit No. 998 of 2024 praying, inter aila for a decree for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner herein.
In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The said application was contested by the opposite party and the same has been rejected by the order impugned. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present revisional application.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit is outrightly frivolous. It is submitted that if at all, the opposite party has any grievance the same would be against the lessor of the opposite party through whom, the opposite party claims right in respect of the suit property and not the petitioner.
It is further submitted that the plaint has been cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action when there is none. It is next submitted that even if the opposite party’s plaint case is assumed to be correct, the prayer for decree for declaration would not be maintainable against the petitioner.
Mr. Chatterjee relies judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)2 in support of his contention that in the present case the plaint should have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and the petitioner’s application should have been allowed.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the opposite party’s plaint discloses a cause of action. It is submitted that the opposite party’s plaint does not fall within any of the limbs of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and as such, the order impugned does not call for any interference at all.
It is further submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben (supra) has been duly considered by the Trial Court and the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code has been rejected by well-reasoned order.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered materials on record.
Even if, Mr. Chatterjee’s contention is taken at face value and it is held that the petitioner could have claimed declaratory relief against the petitioner’s lessor in respect of the suit property, then also having regard to the averments made by the opposite party/plaintiff in the plaint (to the effect that the petitioner sought to dispossess the opposite party from the suit property and take forcible possession thereof) and the prayer for decree for declaration of right to run the hotel and restaurant business and permanent injunction made therein against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
As regards Mr. Chatterjee’s submission that the prayer for decree of declaration would not be maintainable against the petitioner, even if that is assumed to be correct then also, having regard to the averments made in the plaint as aforesaid, the prayer for decree of permanent injunction would be maintainable against the petitioner. It is well-settled that there can be no partial rejection of plaint and that even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code3.
The order passed by the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration all points which would be evident from the following observations:-
“Heard both sides and perused the plaint meticulously as well as the petition along with the case laws relied on by rival parties. From the plaint itself, there is nothing from which it cannot be inferred that there is no cause of action.
It is a fact that the defendant has pleaded only the grounds mentioned in clause (a) of order 7 rule 11 of CPC. He has not mentioned any fact in his petition to attract any other ground for rejection of plaint except the absence of cause of action. He has also pleaded that he has falsely been impleaded whereas he has no link or connection with the plaintiff and has prayed for rejection of the plaint considering aforesaid facts as equivalent to absence of cause of action.
From the documents relied on by the plaintiff it clearly appears that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Sudama Pandit though he is not the defendant. It is pertinent to mention that it is not always mandatory that the defendant should be the vendor of the plaintiff in every suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Hence the submission of the defendant that he has no link or connection with any of the transaction of the plaintiff has no legs. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the defendant having no right, title, interest or possession in respect of the suit property is disturbing his peaceful possession over the suit property. He has also given a date ie. 21.05.2024 when the defendant not only disturb his hotel business but also tried to disturb the customers of the plaintiff to achieve illegal monetary gain. Hence, in no way it can be said that there is no cause of action. The plaint discloses a cause of action whereas the correction or otherwise of the allegations constituting the cause of action is beyond the purview of clase (a) of order 7 rule 11 of CPC. Hence, in my view the instant petition is baseless and has no merit.”
It is well-settled that in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court would intervene only if there is a patent error of law or the order is perverse. Such is not the case here.
The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dahiben (supra), does not aid the petitioner in this case inasmuch as the plaint discloses a clean cause of action and grounds for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code have not been made out.
In view of the aforesaid, no interference call for with the order impugned. C.O. 306 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed.
It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that the application for injunction filed by the opposite party has been fixed for hearing on February 18, 2027. He further submits that written objection against the said application is yet to be filed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file his written objection within a fortnight from date as prayed for.
If such written objection is filed within a fortnight as prayed for and copy thereof is served upon the opposite party, the petitioner shall be entitled to pray for preponment of the hearing of the injunction application that has been fixed on February 18, 2027 before the learned Trial Court. If such application is filed, the learned Trial Court is requested to prepone the date and dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a month from the preponed date, upon hearing the parties.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.