Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 1151 - HC - Indian LawsRejection of plaint against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 for want of a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure - It is contended that the Plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay the balance consideration, however, the Vendors refused to perform their part of the contract - HELD THAT:- The earlier decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ [2012 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT] needs to be followed which has laid down that the plaint as a whole can be rejected against some of the defendants. The Learned Single Judge was therefore correct in holding that there is no legal embargo on rejecting the plaint as a whole against some of the defendants. Whether the plaint does not disclose cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 warranting rejection against them, in terms of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code? - HELD THAT:- What amounts to ‘cause of action’ is well settled by the Supreme Court in its various decisions. In this regard, we refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. vs. A. P. Agencies [1989 (3) TMI 370 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the meaning of the expression “cause of action” is explained where it was held that Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. The Plaint discloses sufficient cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6. The pleadings are not a mere illusion of a cause of action. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have a right to sue Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 - Whether Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 can be held liable to pay damages will depend on the merits of the case. However, a bare reading of the Plaint conveys that damages are also claimed from Defendants Nos. 4 to 6, which is relevant. Under the scheme of Order II Rule 2 of the Code, it is necessary that parties must claim all the reliefs as available to them at the time of filing of the suit. Any intentional omission debars a second suit on the same cause of action. A plaintiff is not required to file a separate suit for other reliefs, where the other reliefs flow from the same cause of action. The relief of specific performance and the alternative claim of refund of earnest amount emanate from the same cause of action, and therefore a second suit for recovery of money may be untenable if filed by the Plaintiffs against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Thus, a plaint can be rejected as a whole against some of the defendants - the Plaint in the present Suit discloses sufficient cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in context of the Plaintiff’s alternate claim for refund of earnest amount - Notice of motion dismissed - appeal allowed.
|