Kerala High Court
Anil Kumar vs Unknown on 23 October, 2018
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940
CRP.No. 42 of 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2016 IN IA NO.1458/2016 IN OS
322/2015 of THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM
DATED 08-12-2016
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
ANIL KUMAR
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, AISWARYA,VAZHICHAL
EAST, KORATTY VILLAGE, KORATTY PO.,THRISSUR DISTRICT
KERALA.PIN-680308
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH NAIR
SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
M/S. FLOMIC FREIGHT SERVICES LTD
101/102, SPAN LAND MARK, 145 ANDHERI KURLA ROAD,
ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI 400093, THROUGH ITS COCHIN
BRANCH, M/S. FLOMIC FREIGHT SERVICES, LTD.8A, BAB
TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ATLANTIS, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTE DBY ITS BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, MRS. RANCY ABROA
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN
SMT.LINDA.M.J.
SRI.M.A.BABY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP 42/2017 2
O R D E R
Against the order dated 8.12.2016 in I.A.No.1458/2016 in O.S.No.322/2015 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, the defendant/petitioner came up with this petition.
2. The above said application was filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. stating that the plaint pleadings will not reveal or constitute a cause of action, which was dismissed by the learned Munsiff under the impugned order dated 8.12.2016 against which this revision petition was filed.
3. The suit is one for recovery of money alleged to have been misappropriated by the defendant while he was employed as a Branch Manager of the plaintiff concern/firm. The allegation of misappropriation well pleaded in the plaint. Now the present application was submitted by the defendant stating that the plaint averment will not constitute any cause of action for the suit.
4. The expression "cause of action" stands for bundle of facts and in a civil suit it should be CRP 42/2017 3 understood in reference to what is stated in Section 9 of the C.P.C. which enables the civil court to adjudicate any civil dispute unless the same expressly or impliedly barred under the provisions of law. So, the expression "cause of action" should be understood and appreciated as the facts constituting an action/civil remedy through a civil court. It is not at all necessary to plead and place different dates of action or misappropriation, though the dates are relevant in bringing the suit and assessment/calculation of period of limitation, that it does not itself mean that cause of action confined only to various dates. It really stands for the entire facts in dispute as disclosed in the plaint.
Hence, the revision fails. Dismissed. No costs.
SD/-
P.SOMARAJAN
Kav/ JUDGE