9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent-plaintiff which is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956 that it had supplied raw material to the defendant-Company and in view of such supplies it was liable to recover various amounts from the defendant. According to the plaint averments the last amount received by the plaintiff-Company was on 30/10/2013 and on that date the total outstanding was Rs. 31,05,518/. It therefore filed suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount with interest. 3. In that suit the petitioner-defendant filed an application under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) seeking rejection of the plaint. In the application at Exhibit14 it was stated that the plaint did not disclose any cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as moved under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. According to the learned counsel the application under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code ought to have been decided first and the application for amendment should not have been decided before adjudicating the same. In that regard learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Patasibai and ors. vs. Ratanlal (1990) 2 SCC 42. It was then submitted that an amendment which took away the right that had accrued in favour of the defendant could not have been allowed by the trial Court. In that regard he placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ravajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanswamy and sons and ors. (2009) 10 SCC 84. It was thus submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the last amount received from the defendant-Company is on 30/10/2013 and amount of Rs. 31,05,518/was outstanding. Further details are given in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint. In paragraph 22 the unpaid amount to be recovered has been specified. In paragraph 24 of the plaint the particulars of claim as well as demand of interest from 30/10/2013 has been pleaded. Thus on reading the averments in the plaint it can be gathered that the last amount received by the plaintiff-Company was on 30/10/2013 and thereafter amount of Rs. 31,05,518/was due and payable. 8. The rejection of the plaint has been sought on the ground that the cause of action has not been disclosed and that from the statements made in the plaint the suit was barred by l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re cannot be said that any right accrued in favour of the defendant has been taken away by virtue of the amendment being allowed. 10. In the light of this finding that the cause of action was already pleaded when the suit was filed and that the trial Court has not relied upon averments in amended paragraph 21A, ratio of the decision in Patasibai and ors. (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The question whether the amendment could have been allowed especially when application for rejection of the plaint was pending is not required to be adjudicated in the present case especially when it is found that even the trial Court has not relied upon the amended plaint for rejecting the application under provisions of Order VI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
