Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1625 - HC - Indian LawsRejection of application filed by the applicant under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of CPC - seeking return and/or rejection of the plaint - whether the plaint discloses the cause of action, and whether the suit is barred under any law as contemplated in Clause (a) and Clause (d) respectively of Rule 11 of Order VII? HELD THAT:- Order VI Rule 2 requires that every pleadings shall contain, and contain only a statement in concise form and of material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Thus, though the pleadings must contain a statement in concise form of material facts, it need not contain the evidence by which they are to be proved. At this juncture, it would be also relevant to mention that Order VII Rule 1 states as to what particulars should be contained in the plaint, and as per Clause (e) of the said Rule, the plaint must contain the facts constituting the cause of action, and when it arose. As per Clause (f) thereof, the plaint also must contain the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction. Order VI Rule 2 and Order VII Rule 1 it clearly emerges that the pleadings i.e. the plaint in the instant case, must state the material facts constituting the cause of action and as to when it arose, and omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action, and the plaint becomes bad. Such infirmity may attract Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII. The word "shall" used in Order VII Rule 11 also cast duty on the Court to reject the plaint when it is hit by any of the clauses mentioned in Rule 11. In the instant case, the applicant Bank having already initiated the proceedings under Section 17 of the DRT Act, for crystallizing their dues as permitted by the BIFR, the suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking reliefs in respect of the same subject matter would be completely barred under Section 18 of the said Act. It cannot be gainsaid that under Section 17 the Tribunal has powers and jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts, and under Section 18 no other Court or authority has jurisdiction or powers in relation to the matters specified in Section 17 - when the applicant Bank has filed the proceedings before the DRT, the respondent was expected to claim set off or counter-claim in respect of the transactions in question, which were also the subject matter of the proceedings before the DRT. The respondent could not have asked for the prayers in the suit seeking stay of the proceedings pending before the DRT, Mumbai, which was not the Tribunal subordinate to the trial Court. As held by Supreme Court in case of T. ARIVANDANDAM VERSUS T.V. SATYAPAL & ANOTHER [1977 (10) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT], followed in N.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY AND ORS. VERSUS MARIYAMMA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ORS. [2005 (7) TMI 705 - SUPREME COURT], and various other cases, if clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing. The Court is of the opinion that the plaint, not disclosing the cause of action and even otherwise barred under the provisions contained in Section 18 of the DRT Act, deserves to be rejected under Clause (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII. The Court is also of the opinion that the suit filed by the respondent is absolutely vexatious and dishonest litigation, filed with a view to misuse and abuse the process of law to avoid payments to the applicant Bank. The trial Court having failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon it under Order VII Rule 11, and having failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, the impugned order passed by it deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The Civil Revision Application stands allowed.
|