The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRP No.39 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure) M/s. SHAGUN and others …. Petitioners Laxman Kumar Sahu …. Opposite Party -versus- Appeared in this case:- For Petitioners For Opposite Party : : Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A.K. Patro, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing :13.11.2025/date of judgment: 23.12.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioners(defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.114 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Berhampur) challenging the impugned order dated 08.07.2025(Annexure-5), i.e., rejection to their petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur. 2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners(defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.114 of 2023) for filing of the same is that, the sole Opposite Party No.1 in this revision, i.e., Laxman Kumar Sahu being the plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.114 of 2023 against the petitioners in this revision arraying them as defendants in the Court of learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur praying for directing the defendants for the disbursement of his arrear wages, bonus and gratuity with interest along with other relieves, to which, he is entitled for stating in his plaint that, he was working in the establishment of the defendant no.1 and he has rendered service for more than 38 years since 09.05.1987, but, the defendants did not pay his arrear, bonus and gratuity, for which, he filed the suit vide C.S. No.114 of 2023 against the defendants. Having been noticed from the court of learned Civil Judge(Sr. Divisions), Berhampur in C.S. No.114 of 2023, the defendants filed their joint written statement challenging the suit of the plaintiff taking their stands in their written statement that, the plaintiff has no cause of Page 2 of 8 action for filing the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-providing adequate court fees and the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation along with some other stands/pleas. 3. Thereafter, the defendants filed a petition on dated 07.03.2025 vide Annexure-3 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Party in this revision) on the ground that, the plaint of the plaintiff is bad for the absence of cause of action, non-payment of sufficient court fees and the same is barred by limitation. To which, the plaintiff objected by filing his objection vide Annexure-4 stating that, the questions raised by the defendants in their petition dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-3) under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 are to be decided in the judgment of the suit after trial and not prior to that. 4. After hearing from both the sides, learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur passed the impugned order on dated 08.07.2025 vide Annexure-5 in the suit vide C.S. No.114 of 2023 and rejected to the petition dated Page 3 of 8 07.03.2025 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendants(petitioners in this revision) assigning the reasons that, “the pleas raised by the defendants in their petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. can be adjudicated only during the course of trial and not at this stage, for which, the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendants is devoid of merit. The same stands rejected.” 5. On being dissatisfied with the above impugned order of rejection to the petition dated 07.03.2025 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendants passed on dated 08.07.2025 under Annexure-5 by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, they(defendants) challenged the same by filing this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 being the petitioners against the plaintiff arraying him(plaintiff) as Opposite Party. 6. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides and also have perused the impugned order as well as the materials available in the record. 7. So far as the question for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.114 of 2023 raised by the defendants Page 4 of 8 on the ground of absence of cause of action in the plaint is concerned, On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Niharkanti Mishra vrs. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik and others : reported in 2025(2) Current Civil Court Cases(Orissa) -37--Whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. Whether, the cause of action does or does not exist in the plaint of the plaintiffs must be found from the pleadings of the plaint itself. (ii) In a case between Jageswari Devi and others vrs. Shatrughan Ram : reported in (2007) 15 SCC-52 that, plaint can never be rejected for non-existence of cause of action, but, a plaint can be rejected for non- disclosure of a cause of action. Because, there is distinction between non-disclosure of cause of action and non- existence of cause of action. When, plaint discloses cause of action, the question of its rejection for non-existence of cause of action does not arise. 8. Para No.22 of the plaint of the plaintiff is clearly and unambiguously disclosing about the cause of action for filing of the suit by the plaintiff(Opposite Party) against the defendants. 9. As such, when the plaint of the plaintiff is disclosing the cause of action, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the plaint of the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. Page 5 of 8 No.114 of 2023 cannot be rejected at its threshold under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908. 10. So far as ground raised by the defendants for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff, i.e., on the ground of non- payment of sufficient court fees is concerned, On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision:- (i) In a case between Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vrs. Mahaveer Lunia and others : reported in 2025(3) CCC-140(S.C.) that, plaint cannot be rejected under Orde-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. merely on the ground of insufficient of Court fees, because, law mandates that, plaintiff can be offered opportunity to rectify deficiency regarding payment of inadequate court fees. So, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the plaint of the plaintiff cannot entail for rejection on the ground of non-payment of sufficient court fees. 11. So far as the ground raised by the defendants for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff on the ground of barred by limitation is concerned, in Para Nos.20 and 21 of the plaint, the plaintiff(Opposite Party) has specifically stated that, he has Page 6 of 8 not been paid his legal dues by the Opposite Parties, i.e. his arrear wages, bonus and gratuity. The non-payment of the said legal dues of the plaintiff is creating a continuing cause of action against the defendants. For which, the plaint of the plaintiff cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. That apart, the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, which can be adjudicated properly after elicitation of evidence during trial, but, not prior to that. 12. When, the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur has passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2025(Annexure-5) rejecting the petition under Order- 7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendants(petitioners in this revision) assigning the reasons that, the above pleas raised by them(defendants) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Party) can be decided only during the course of trial and not at the preliminary stage of the suit and when for the reasons assigned above, the said reasons assigned by the leaned trial court for the rejection of the petition vide under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of Page 7 of 8 the defendants(petitioners in this revision) in the impugned order dated 08.07.2025(Annexure-5) are not unreasonable, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the same through this revision filed by the petitioners(defendants) does not arise. 13. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision filed by the petitioners(defendants). The same must fail. In result, this revision filed by the petitioners(defendants) is dismissed and disposed of finally on contest directing the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur for deciding the suit vide C.S. No.114 of 2023 pending in his court between the parties as expeditiously possible within a period of six months as per law from the date of filing of the certified copy of this judgment by any of the parties. 14. As such, this revision filed by the petitioners is
Decision
disposed of finally. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 23rd of December, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 26-Dec-2025 11:06:19 Page 8 of 8