The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRP No.41 of 2025 (An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) M/s. Bluline Resorts Pvt. Ltd., representation through its Managing Director, Mr. Akshaya Kumar Parija -versus- M/s. Hotel Sea Point Pvt. Ltd., represented through to its Director, Usha Jena …. Petitioner …. Opposite Party Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Paul, Advocate. For Opposite Party- Mr. G. Samantaray, Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Routray, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :17.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :17.10.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioner(defendant in the suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri) praying for setting aside the impugned order of rejection to the petition dated 19.05.2025 of the petitioner(defendant) under Order-7, Page 1 of 6 Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 passed on dated 08.07.2025 in C.S. No.462 of 2017 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri. 2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner(defendant) and learned counsel for the Opposite Party(plaintiff. 3. It appears from the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed in C.S. No.462 of 2017 that, the petitioner(defendant) had filed a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of plaint of the Opposite Party(plaintiff) in C.S. No.462 of 2017 under Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Section 3 and Section 29(2) of the limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that, the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.462 of 2017 is barred by limitation. 4. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Puri rejected to the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the petitioner(defendant) assigning the reasons that, “earlier the defendant had filed a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff in C.S. No.462 of 2017 , but, the said petition under Order-7, Rule- 11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant was rejected on dated 06.05.2023,. For which, this 2nd petition of the defendant(petitioner) under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff on similar grounds is not entertainable.” 5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsels of both the sides fairly conceded that, the earlier petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant for rejection of plaint was not on the similar Page 2 of 6 ground with the 2nd petition of the defendant under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. Because, the earlier petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant for rejection of plaint was on the ground of RES JUDICATA as per Section 11 of the C.P.C., but its next petition, in which, the impugned order has been passed was on the ground of LIMITATION. When, the earlier petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant(petitioner in this revision) was not on the similar ground with 2nd petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., of the defendant, then at this juncture, the rejection to the 2nd petition under Order-7, Rule- 11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant(petitioner) by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Puri in C.S. No.462 of 2017 through the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 assigning the reason that, the earlier petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant was on similar ground with the 2nd petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant cannot be sustainable under law. For which, the impugned dated 08.07.2025 passed in C.S. No.462 of 2017 by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Puri is liable to be set aside. 6. The suit between the parties vide C.S. No.462 of 2017 is of the year 2017. In the meantime, eight years have already been passed. Page 3 of 6 The 2nd petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. in respect of the impugned order was passed, the same was filed by the defendant on dated 19.05.2025. It is the submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides that, till yet, written statement has not been filed by the defendant in the suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017. When eight years have already been passed in the meanwhile since filing of the suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017 by the plaintiff(Opposite Party in this revision) and when, till yet, the defendant has not filed its written statement, then at this juncture, it will be more appropriate as per law, if the grounds raised/taken by the defendant time and again for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff in its petitions under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. shall be raised by the defendant in its written statement, then, the said questions/grounds raised by the defendant(petitioner in this revision) in its written statement can be the contentious issues along with other issues in the suit and by the result of which, the said issues can be decided/ adjudicated by the court properly and effectively on the basis of evidence led by the parties in respect of the same. 7. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- In a case between Panjarapol Society, Churu and another (i) vrs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer and others : reported in 2019(3) C.J.(Civil) Rajasthan-1415 that, obviously contentious issues shall be adjudicated by the Court on the basis of evidence led by the Page 4 of 6 parties. For which, the application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint is liable to be dismissed. In a case between Rachna Sharma vrs. Mena Kumari (ii) Sharma : reported in 2013 AIR CC-2864(H.P.) that, trial court while framing shall also frame the issues in respect of the questions raised by the defendant for rejection of plaint in the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. and to decide the said issues in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. In a case between Omwati and others vrs. Raghubar Singh (iii) Yadav and others : reported in 2021(1) Civil Court Cases- 22(Allahabad) that, any question, which requires to be decided on the basis of the evidence of the parties, the same cannot be the basis for rejection of plaint under Order-7, Rule-11(d) of the C.P.C. In a case between Shri Elmano Menino Dias vrs. The (iv) Archbishop, Archdiocese of Goa : reported in 2009 (2) Civil Court Cases-113(Bombay) that, an issue which needs to be decided by the Court at the final hearing, the same will not provide the ground for rejection of plaint under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. In a case between Nanu Ram Sharma and another vrs. (v) Additional District Judge(Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur and others : reported in 2012(4) RLW-3401(Rajasthan) that, objections raised by the defendants shall be taken into consideration after recording the evidence of both the sides, but, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of said objection raised by the defendants. 8. As stated above, when, it is held that, the grounds/questions raised by the defendant(petitioner in this revision) time and again in its petitions under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908, can very well be raised/taken by the defendant in its written statement and the said grounds/questions raised by the defendant can be decided effectively/properly being the contentious issues along with other issues in the suit on the basis of evidence led by the parties in respect of the same, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, the ends of justice shall bestly be served, if this revision will be
Decision
disposed of finally in setting aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed in C.S. No.462 of 2017 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Page 5 of 6 Senior Division, Puri giving liberty to the defendant to raise all the questions/grounds(those were raised by it in its petitions under Order-7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint) in its written statement and the trial court shall frame the issues in respect of the said grounds/questions raised by the defendant along with other issues, if any, and shall decide the suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible following the guidelines of the Apex Court relating to the speedy disposal of the old suits. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment immediately to the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Puri in reference to C.S. No.462 of 2017, pending in his court. 9. As such, this revision filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th of October, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. (A.C. Behera), Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUITTACK Date: 18-Oct-2025 10:26:07 Page 6 of 6