The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRP No.45 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure) Abdul Kasim Jalaluddin and another …. Petitioners Nahirun Nisha and others …. -versus- Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioners For Opposite Parties : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. P.P. Mohanty, Advocate Mr. K.K. Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing :10.07.2025/date of judgment: 25.07.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioners against the Opposite Parties praying for setting aside an order of rejection to their petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. passed on dated 31.07.2024 in the suit vide C.S. No.75 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Pipili in the district of Puri. 2. The petitioners are the defendant nos.1 and 2, the Opposite Party No.1 is the sole plaintiff and the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 7 are the defendant nos.3 to 8 in the suit vide C.S. No.75 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pipili in the district of Puri. 3. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners(defendant nos.1 and 2) for filing of the same is that, the Opposite Party No.1 in this revision, i.e., Nahirun Nisha filed the suit vide C.S. No.75 of 2022 on dated 27.06.2022 being the plaintiff against several persons including the petitioners in this revision arraying them as defendants praying for declaration of her right of passage over Lot No.II property of the suit and to injucnt the defendants permanently from changing the nature and character of the said suit land and also to declare the registered Gift Deed No.3630 dated 21.09.2021 as void and illegal stating in Para No.18 of the plaint about the accrual of cause of action in Para No.18 of the plaint for filing the suit, i.e., when the defendants tried to obstruct her(plaintiff) Page 2 of 9 from using the suit land. The defendant nos.1 and 2 filed a petition on dated 31.01.2024 in that suit vide C.S. No.75 of 2022 under Order-7, Rule-11 (a) and (b) of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff stating that, though the plaintiff has stated in her plaint that, the cause of action arose on dated 27.06.2022 for filing the suit against them(defendants), but, the said cause of action stated in the plaint by the plaintiff is baseless, imaginary and illusory. For which, on meaningful reading of the plaint and scanning of averments of the plaint, it goes to show that, neither cause of action for filing the suit exists nor survives the same for adjudication of the suit in the court of law. Therefore, the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. 4. To which, the plaintiff objected, stating in her objection that, the above disputed facts raised by the defendant nos.1 and 2 in their petition under Order-7, Rule-11(a) and (b) of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint can only be decided in the final hearing of the suit, but, not at this preliminary stage. For which, the petition dated Page 3 of 9 31.01.2024 under Order-7, Rule-11(a) and (b) of the C.P.C. filed by the defendant nos.1 and 2 is liable to be rejected. 5. After hearing from both the sides, the learned trial court rejected to the petition dated 31.01.2024 under Order-7, Rule-11 (a) and (b) of the C.P.C. of the defendant nos.1 and 2 as per the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 assigning the reasons that, “When the plaint of the plaintiff is disclosing cause of action, the above grounds raised by the defendant nos.1 and 2 for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs, on the grounds that, the cause of action indicated in the plaint is baseless, imaginary and illusory cannot be acceptable under law, because, the said grounds of the defendant nos.1 and 2 can only be addressed during the trial of the suit, but, not at this preliminary stage.” 6. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the petition dated 31.01.2024 of the defendant nos.1 and 2 passed on dated 31.07.2024 by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Pipili in C.S. No.75 of 2022, the defendant nos.1 and 2 challenged the same by filing this revision being the Page 4 of 9 petitioners against the plaintiff arraying her(plaintiff) as Opposite Party No.1 and also arraying the defendant nos.3 to 8 as Opposite Party Nos.2 to 7. 7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners(defendant nos.1 and 2) and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1(Plaintiff). 8. According to the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this revision is when the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff discloses cause of action, then, whether the said plaint of the plaintiff is liable for rejection under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 on the ground of non-existence of cause of action? 9. Whether, the cause of action stated in the plaint of the plaintiff is baseless, imaginary or illusory are essentially the question of fact and the same can only be answered in the judgment of the suit after appreciation of pleadings and evidence of the parties, but, not through a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908. Page 5 of 9 10. As per law, there is distinction between “Non- disclosure of cause of action” and “Non-existence of cause of action.” Non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint would fall within the ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908, but, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of plaint. 11. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions :- (i) In a case between Dahiben vrs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusaali(Gajra)(D) Thr L.Rs. and others : reported in 2021(1) Civil Court Cases-210(S.C.) that, whether a plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But, whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. (ii) In a case between Kishore Kumar vrs. Ishar Dass : reported in 2024(4) Civil Court Cases-123(J&K) that, there is distinction between “non-disclosure of cause of action” and “non-existence of cause of action”. Non- Page 6 of 9 disclosure of cause of action in the plaint would fall within the ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, “non-existence of cause of action” would not fall within the ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. (iii) In a case between Niharkanti Mishra vrs. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik and others : reported in 2025(2) CCC-37(Orissa) that, a plaint can never be rejected under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for non-existence of cause of action, but a plaint can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action—There is distinction between non-disclosure of cause of action and non-existence of cause of action. (iv) In a case between Jageswari Devi and others vrs. Satrughan Ram : reported in (2007) 15 SCC-52 that, there is difference between non-disclosure and non-existence of cause of action and defective cause of action. While the former comes within the scope of Order-7, Rule-11, the latter is to be decided during trial of the suit. Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit Page 7 of 9 of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. 12. As, in the petition dated 31.01.2024 under Order-7 Rule-11(a) and (b) of the C.P.C., 1908, the defendant nos.1 and 2 (petitioners in this revision), have stated that, though the plaint of the plaintiff discloses the cause of action for filing of the suit, but the said cause of action indicated in the plaint is baseless, imaginary and illusory, for which, it is not the case of the defendant nos.1 and 2 that, the plaint of the plaintiff is bad for non-disclosure of cause of action. Therefore, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court to the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff and the petition dated 31.01.2024 under Order-7, Rule-11(a) and (b) of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant nos.1 and 2, it is held that, the plaint of the plaintiff cannot be rejected under Order-7, Rule-11(a) and (b) of the C.P.C., 1908. So, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court on dated 31.07.2024 rejecting the petition dated 31.01.2024 under Order-7, Rule-11(a) and (b) of the C.P.C., Page 8 of 9 1908 of the defendant nos.1 and 2 is neither illegal nor improper. For which, the question of interfering with the same through this revision filed by the petitioners (defendant nos.1 and 2) does not arise. 13. Therefore, this revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.1 and 2) is liable to be dismissed. 14. In result, this revision filed by the petitioners is dismissed on contest. Learned trial court, i.e., learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pipili is directed to dispose of the suit vide C.S. No.75 of 2022 pending in his Court as expeditiously as possible following the guidelines formulated by the Apex court for early disposal of the suit.
Decision
15. As such, this revision is disposed of finally. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 25th of July, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 26-Jul-2025 11:56:42 Page 9 of 9