The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.R.P. No.9 of 2022 (In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) M/s. Sree Majhi Gouri Modern Rice Mill, Kotlaguda, Rayagada and others -versus- …. Petitioners Smt. Yekkamsetty Saraswati and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners - Mr. S.P. Mohanty, Advocate. Mr. G. N. Sahu, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. K.C. Rajguru Mohapatra, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :30.01.2025 :: 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 against an order of rejection to their petition under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908 passed on dated 20.01.2022 by the Trial Court in C.S. No.47 of 2014.
Legal Reasoning
The petitioners in this revision are the defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.47 of 2014. The opposite party C.R.P. No.9 of 2022 Page 1 of 8 No.1 of this revision is the sole plaintiff in that suit vide C.S. No.47 of 2014 before the Trial Court. The opposite party Nos.3 to 6 of this revision are the defendant Nos.5 to 8 before the Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.47 of 2014. 2. The suit vide C.S. No.47 of 2014 has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 praying for a declaration that, the reconstituted partnership deeds dated 19.07.2007 and 07.11.2010 respectively are void and the same are not binding upon her (plaintiff) and her children i.e. defendant Nos.5 to 8 and to declare that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8 are deemed partners in respect of 25% share of her deceased husband in the defendant No.1 Rice Mill along with its all business and to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 4 for rendition of accounts in the business of defendant No.1 Rice Mill and to pay the share of the profits thereof to the extent of 25% in the business of the defendant No.1 Rice Mill every year to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8 along with other reliefs, to which, she (plaintiff) and defendant Nos.5 to 8 are entitled for stating that, the husband of the plaintiff was a partner in respect of 25% share in the defendant No.1 Rice Mill and defendant Nos.2 & 3 were the other partners of the said defendant No.1 Rice Mill, but, the husband of the plaintiff expired on dated 17.07.2007 leaving behind her (plaintiff) and defendant Nos.5 to 8 as his successors and after the death of her husband, 25% share left by him in the defendant No.1 C.R.P. No.9 of 2022 Page 2 of 8 Rice Mill devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8, but, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not paying anything to them i.e. plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8. For which, she (plaintiff) filed the suit vide C.S. No.47 of 2014 against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 praying for the aforesaid reliefs arraying her children as proforma defendant Nos.5 to 8. In that suit vide C.S. No.47 of 2014, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a petition on dated 29.11.2011 under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff on the ground that, after the death of the husband of the plaintiff on dated 17.07.2007, the partnership in the defendant No.1 Rice Mill has automatically been dissolved as per law and after lawful dissolution of the partnership, they (defendant Nos.1 to 4) reconstituted the partnership as per the partnership deeds dated 19.07.2007 & 07.11.2010 respectively, in which, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8 have no interest. For which, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit. So, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. 3. After considering the petition and objection of the parties and after hearing from both the sides, the Trial Court rejected to the petition dated 29.11.2011 under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 as per Order dated 20.01.2022 passed in C.S. No.47 of 2014 assigning the reasons that, “whether the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8 are entitled to get any share in the defendant No.1’s Rice Mill is to be decided in the C.R.P. No.9 of 2022 Page 3 of 8 judgment of that suit after evidence, but not at this stage, only on the basis of the plaint of the plaintiff, when the contentions made in the plaint of the plaintiff is justifying the adjudication of the same in the trial.” 4. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of rejection to the petition under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 passed on dated 20.01.2022 by the Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.47 of 2014, they (defendant Nos.1 to 3) challenged the same by filing this revision being the petitioners against the plaintiff arraying her (plaintiff) as opposite party No.1 and also arraying her children as opposite party Nos.5 to 8. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party No.1. 6. During the course of hearing of the revision, in order to assail the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision between S.P. Misrha and others Vrs. Mohd. Laiquddin Khan and another in Civil Appeal No.3311 of 2015. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit), on the death of the husband of the plaintiff, the partnership in the defendant No.1’s Rice Mill was dissolved automatically as per law and after dissolution of the same, the partnership has been reconstituted excluding the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8. For which, they (plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8) are not the partners C.R.P. No.9 of 2022 Page 4 of 8 in the reconstituted partnership firm. For such reason, the plaintiff had no cause of action for filing the suit claiming any share in the partnership firm. It appears from the plaint that, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that, her husband was a partner in respect of 25% share in the defendant No.1’s Rice Mill. So, after the death of her husband, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not pay any share from the profits of the defendant No.1’s Rice Mill to the plaintiff although the share of her deceased husband in the defendant No.1’s Rice Mill has lawfully been devolved upon her and her children. For which, she (plaintiff) filed the suit praying for a declaration that, the reconstituted partnership deeds excluding her (plaintiff) and her children (defendant Nos.5 to 8) are void and to declare that, the said reconstituted partnership deeds are not binding upon them and to hold that, they (plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8) are continuing as partners in respect of 25% share of her husband in defendant No.1’s Rice Mill and to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 for rendition of accounts of the firm and to pay 25% share from the profits of the business of the defendant No.1’s Rice Mill every year to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8. 7. It is the settled propositions of law that, when the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide one relief, the suit is maintainable in Civil Court irrespective of the fact, whether other reliefs can be granted or not? C.R.P. No.9 of 2022 Page 5 of 8 When the plaintiff has prayed for rendition of account of the defendant No.1 Rice Mill and when, by the time of the death of her husband, her husband had 25% share in the partnership firm and when it has been specifically stated in the plaint that, there is no rendition of account, then at this juncture, it can easily be held that, the plaint of the plaintiff is disclosing cause of action in respect of the prayer of the plaintiff i.e. to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 for rendition of accounts of the defendant No.1’s Rice Mill for its adjudication in the trial of the suit. 8. So far as, other reliefs of the plaintiff than rendition of accounts are concerned, the said reliefs/prayers are also adjudiciable along with the prayer i.e. rendition of account in the trial of the suit. The propositions of law on this aspect has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i)
Legal Reasoning
In a case between Rusi Kumar Sahu and others Vrs. Sri Sri Rasa @ Rahas Behari Thakura and others reported in 1987 (II) OLR 126 that, when the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide one relief, the suit is maintainable in Civil Court irrespective of the fact whether other reliefs can be granted by it or not. (ii) In a case between PT. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak and another Vrs. Dr. Gaurav reported in 2021 (2) Civil Court Cases 234 (Punjab & Haryana)—CPC, 1908—O.7 R.11—Rejection of plaint—One out of several prayers beyond jurisdiction of Trial Court, plaint cannot be rejected on this ground. (iii) In a case between Khirasa & Ors. Vrs. Shanta alias Geeta and others reported in 2022 (3) Civil Court Cases 693 (Karnataka) and C.R.P. No.9 of 2022 Page 6 of 8 Geetha D/o Late Krishna & others Vrs. Nanjundaswamy and Others reported in 2023 (4) CCC 135 (SC)—CPC, 1908—O.7 R.11—Plaint cannot be rejected partly. (iv) In a case between Madhavprasad Aggarwal and another Vrs. Axis Bank Ltd. and another reported in 2020 (1) OJR 301(SC) —O.7 R.11—Plaint cannot be rejected partly, if rejected the same will be rejected as a whole, if some other reliefs claimed against the respondent No.1 is barred, the objection for the same can only be raised under O.6 R.16 of the CPC, 1908 in the appropriate stage, but not through a petition under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908. (v) In a case between Dr. Ramesh Chander Munjal and others Vrs. Dr. Suraj Munjal and others reported in 2022 (3) Civil Court Cases 756 (Delhi)—O.7 R.11—Whether reliefs claimed in the plaint can be granted or not cannot be determined at the stage of considering an application under O.7 R.11 of the CPC, 1908, as the Court has ample powers to mould reliefs at the time of passing final judgment.. (vi) In a case between Nisha Devliya Vrs. Nandani Mishra and others reported in 2024 (2) CCC 271 (MP)—O.7 R.11—Plaint cannot be rejected, when it discloses cause of action. 9. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the plaint involves consideration of pleadings and evidence of the parties, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the decisions referred to supra at paragraph No.8, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 for rejection of the petition dated 29.11.2011 of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 under O.7 R.11 cannot be held as erroneous. For which, there is no justification under law for making interference with the same through this revision filed by the petitioners. C.R.P. No.9 of 2022 Page 7 of 8 So, the decision 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. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision of the petitioners. The same must fail. 10. In result, the revision filed by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 to 3) is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
Decision
11. As such, the revision is disposed of finally being dismissed. 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.9 of 2022 Page 8 of 8