Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 754 (ORI)

Glen Rodrigues v. Adhunik Metals Ltd.

2014-11-12

C.R.DASH

body2014
JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. The petitioner, who is defendant before the court below, has filed the present CRP challenging the order dated 29.06.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela in C.S. No.387 of 2010 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Order-7, Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner, being the defendant, entered his appearance in the suit and filed written statement, inter alia, on the ground that there is no cause of action or any basis for institution of the suit and there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendant. The petitioner thereafter, filed a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is absolutely no cause of action to file the suit against the petitioner and there is no privity of contract between the parties. The present opposite party, who is the plaintiff before the lower court, filed objection to the aforesaid petition. 3. The learned court below, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, rejected the petition filed by the present petitioner holding that, there is sufficient ground to file the suit and there is ample cause of action and the petition filed on behalf of the defendant deserves to be dismissed and the petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the case of Church of Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society vs. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust, AIR 2012 SC 3912 to substantiate his contention that the suit cannot proceed either for specific performance or for recovery of money, as no cause of action has been mentioned in the plaint. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that the plaint filed as Annexure-1 to the revision petition discloses the cause of action so far as the lis against the petitioner is concerned. 6. It is well settled in law that, while considering a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC, only plaint is to be seen and not the defence and it is further settled in law that the cause of action is a bundle of facts, which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. It is well settled in law that, while considering a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC, only plaint is to be seen and not the defence and it is further settled in law that the cause of action is a bundle of facts, which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. These points of law are so well settled that no citation is necessary to elaborate the same for the sake of brevity. 7. Perusal of the plaint shows that paragraphs-4 to 16 of the plaint discloses various facts, basing on which the relief in the suit have been claimed and I do not find any justification to interfere with the finding of the learned court below to the effect that there is ample cause of action unfolded in the plaint. So far as defence of the petitioner regarding absence of privity of contract etc. and nonexistence of any agreement etc. are concerned, those cannot be gone into at this stage. There being sufficient cause of action in the plaint, the impugned order needs no interference. 8. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed.