The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.R.P. No.6 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Maheswar Moharana and another …. Petitioners -versus- Pradipta Kumar Das and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners - Mr. G. Mukherjee, Sr.Advocate. Mr. M. Wright, Advocate.
Legal Reasoning
For Opposite Parties- Mr. G. N. Parida, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :28.01.2025 :: Date of Judgment :25.02.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 & 2 in the suit vide C.S. No.691 of 2023) challenging an order of rejection of their petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) & (d) of the CPC, 1908, which was filed for rejection of the plaint in C.S. No.691 of 2023 filed by the plaintiff (opposite party No.1 in this revision). The petitioners in this revision are the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in the suit vide C.S. No.691 of 2023 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Page 1 of 7 C.R.P. No.6 of 2024 Division), Bhubaneswar. The opposite party No.1 in this revision is the sole plaintiff in the said suit vide C.S. No.691 of 2023. The opposite party Nos.5 to 9 in this revision are the proforma defendant Nos.6 to 10 in the suit vide C.S. No.691 of 2023. 2. The suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.691 of 2023 is a suit for specific performance of contract for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In that suit, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed a petition under O.7 R.11 (b) & (d) of the CPC, 1908 against the plaintiff praying for rejection of the plaint on the following grounds i.e. (i) the suit is undervalued, (ii) the agreement in question has already been determined due to completion of three months, (iii) the said agreement in question was determinable in nature, (iv) the suit of the plaintiff is hit and barred as per the provisions of law envisaged under O.23 R.1(4) and O.2 R.2 as well as under O.7 R.3 of the CPC, 1908. To which, the plaintiff objected contending that, the above grounds raised by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in their petition under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908 can only be decided in the judgment of the suit after appreciation of pleadings and evidence of the parties, but not at this preliminary stage, only on the basis of the plaint of the plaintiff. 3. After hearing from the both the sides, the Trial Court rejected to the aforesaid petition under O.7 R.11 (b) & (d) of the CPC, 1908 of the C.R.P. No.6 of 2024 Page 2 of 7 defendant Nos.1 & 2 on dated 24.01.2024 assigning the reasons that, “all the grounds raised in the petition under O.7 R.11 (b) & (d) of the CPC, 1908 by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 for rejection of plaint can only be decided in the suit after framing proper issues for the same. For which, there is no reason to reject the plaint of the plaintiff.” 4. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the petition under O.7 R.11 (b) & (d) of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant Nos.1 & 2, they (defendant Nos.1 & 2) challenged the same by filing this revision being the petitioners against the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 10 arraying them as opposite parties. 5. 6. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. In order to assail the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions i.e. P. Ravindranath and Ors. Vrs. Sasikala and Ors. reported in 2024(4)CTC626, C. Haridasan Vrs. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup and Ors. reported in 2023(1) CTC605, Turnaround Logistic (P) Ltd. Vrs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. and Ors. passed in CS (OS) 574/2006, Virgo Industries (Eng.) P. Ltd. Vrs. Venturetech Solutions P. Ltd. reported in 2012 (4) CCC 110, Desh Raj and Ors. Vrs. Rohtash Singh reported in (2023) 3 SCC 714, Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited Vrs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.7891 of 2023, C.R.P. No.6 of 2024 Page 3 of 7 Rajendra Bajoria and Ors. Vrs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors. reported in 2021 (4) CCC 66. On the contrary, in support of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 (plaintiff) relied upon the following decisions i.e. Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vrs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99, Keshav Sood Vrs. Kirti Pradeep Sood and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.5841 of 2023, Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited Vrs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Ors. reported in 2024(253)AIC77. 7. The law concerning rejection of plaint through a petition under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908 has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) 2015(1) Civil Court Cases 164 (SC)—Rathnavati and another Vrs. Kavita Ganashamdas—CPC, 1908—O.2 R.2—Bar of subsequent suit—agreement to sell—suit for permanent injunction— Subsequent suit for specific performance—Cause of action for filing suit for permanent injunction based on threat to dispossess—Cause of action to file suit for specific performance based on nonperformance of agreement despite giving legal notice—In suit for permanent injunction, plaintiff is required to make out existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in accordance with provisions of Section 38 of Specific Relief Act—Bar contained under O.2 R.2 of the CPC, 1908 is not attracted. (ii) 2014 (2) Apex Court Judgments 200 (SC)—Coffee Board Vrs. M/s Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd.—CPC, 1908—O.2 R.2—Bar of subsequent suit—Bar of O.2 R.2 of the CPC must be specifically pleaded by defendant in suit and trial court should specifically frame a specific issue in that regard, wherein the pleading in earlier suit must be examined and plaintiff is given an opportunity to demonstrate that, the cause of action in subsequent suit is different. C.R.P. No.6 of 2024 Page 4 of 7 (iii) 2022 (1) Civil Court Cases 624 (Punjab & Haryana)— Darshan Singh and others Vrs Pardeep Singh and others—O.7 R.11 read with O.23 R.1(4)—O.2 R.2—Rejection of plaint—Dismissal of the earlier suit was for default and not on merits, it cannot be said that, the instant suit is barred under O.23 R.1(4), O.2 R.2 of the CPC, 1908. (iv) 2013 AIR CC 2864—Rachna Sharma Vrs. Meena Kumari Sharma—O.7 R.11(b)—Rejection of plaint—Want of correct valuation for purpose of Court fee—Court is not in a position to determine correct valuation of built up structure referred in plaint— Held, plaint cannot be rejected under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908 for want of correct valuation for purpose of Court fee—Trial Court while framing issues shall also frame issue regarding valuation of suit property for purpose of court fee and decide issue in accordance with law after giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence. (v) 2017 (1) Civil Court Cases 703 (Rajasthan)—Shamim Bano Vrs. Nek Mohammed @ Aziz—O.7 R.11 (b) & (c)—Rejection of plaint— Deficient Court fee—Court fee paid as assessed by Court—Plea that Trial Court erred in correctly evaluating the value of property—A continuing issue needs to be determined on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. (vi) 2017 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 721 (Madras)—K. Ramadoss and others Vrs. E. Stalin—CPC, 1908—O.7 R.11 (b) & (c)— Rejection of plaint—Ground of undervaluation or payment deficient Court fee— Plaint cannot be straightaway rejected on the ground of undervaluation or payment of deficient Court fee—Only when Court founds that, relief has been undervalued or sufficient Court fee paid, directs the plaintiff to amend the valuation within a time to be stipulated or to pay the deficient Court fee and if the plaintiff fails to do so, then only question of rejection of plaint under O.7 R.11(b) & (c) CPC, 1908 would arise. (vii) 2021 (1) Civil Court Cases 022 (Allahabad)–Smt. Omwati & Ors. Vrs. Raghubar Singh Yadav & Ors.—(Para 17)—CPC, 1908— O.7 R.11(d)—Rejection of plaint—Any question, which requires to be decided on basis of evidence of parties, cannot be basis for rejecting a plaint. (viii) 2003 (1) OLR 473—Nandakishore Nayak and two others Vrs. State of Orissa and two others—(Para 11)—Valuation of a suit and payment of Court fees is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court and defendants have no say in that respect. (ix) 2012 (2) OJR 255 (SC)—A. Nawab John and Others Vrs. V. N. Subramaniyam—Legislature did not intend to give any advantage to the defendants on account of the payment of the inadequate Court fee by the plaintiffs—A defendant is entitled to bring it to the notice of the Court that, the amount of the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is C.R.P. No.6 of 2024 Page 5 of 7 not accordance with law—The defendant cannot succeed in the suit only on that count. 8. When, the earlier suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.2590 of 2022 was a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter in respect of the suit properties and when that suit of the plaintiff was withdrawn and after withdrawal of that suit, the present suit vide C.S. No.691 of 2022 for specific performance of contract has been filed by the plaintiff and the matters in dispute in the suit can only be adjudicated on verification of the plaint of the previous suit vide C.S. No.2590 of 2022 as well as the evidence of the parties, but not only on the examination of the plaint of the plaintiff at this stage and when the other grounds raised by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 for rejection of plaint i.e. undervaluation of the suit, determinable nature of the agreement and absence of proper description of the suit properties can only be adjudicated in the trial of the suit after consideration of pleadings and evidence of both the parties on the basis of issues framed for the same, but not only on verification of the plaint, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions referred to supra in paragraph No.7 of this judgment, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for rejection of the petition under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 cannot be held as erroneous. C.R.P. No.6 of 2024 Page 6 of 7 For which, the question of interfering with the same through this revision filed by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 & 2 in C.S. No.691 of 2023) does not arise. So, the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners indicated in paragraph No.6 of this judgment have become inapplicable to this revision for the reasons assigned above. 9. When, it is held that, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in the impugned order are not interferable through this revision filed by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 & 2), then at this juncture, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be held as unsustainable under law. For which, there is no merit in the revision of the petitioner, the same must fail. 10. In result, the revision filed by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 & 2) is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
Decision
11. As such, this revision is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 25.02.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Feb-2025 18:07:52 C.R.P. No.6 of 2024 Page 7 of 7