Karnataka High Court
B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 79 (KAR.) = 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 182, 2009 A I H C 51, 2008 (6) AIR KANT HCR 182, (2009) 1 ICC 505, (2009) 2 CIVLJ 487
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED T113 THE 211:! DAY OF' JULY 2008
BEFORE
TI-IE Hownm nm.Jus*r1cE ARALI naaanpsgr % ff f 1
g_1v_g nsvrsxon rmmogg z¢<),83z29s_::_*§j%k C _ V': %
_ " .
B MRU'i'%~iYUNdAYAPPA
S,/O.MAL.LAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
R/A'i'.3:3HEEMASAND1{A' *¢;LL.AGE,%% ; V
CHITRADURGA TALUK Az~:z1;1 *
B M s0MAsHEKARza3?1?A..jT-«-%%V " _
8/o.MRu'1'HY.um;aYAP12A;. a }
AGED A£s0"mi'5G Yi9Af€S'}.,é"'- "
R/O.b1iG NO. 16,~:;:,1-.u;)'V.M'A1re,%.%% % .
2ND STAGE,.I"x'MV "1:2oLLo1*~zs QOLONY,
BAN<3ALoRE--94. %
Pi£'i'£'i'1{,)N19i<(S)
W-sfi 71;:1éA*z'1L, ADV )
v -..-.:w;..'.,...
-v'«4___GURUMt¥__F<'1'HY
§5._f£};€}H1NNAVl£NKA'l'APPA,
' ACiED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
'-«R./'{,).V.PALYA VILLAGE,
-.I_zI1I:EGUNTANUR 11031.1,
"=,CHi'i'RAL)Ul-£(.'rA ' 'ALUK.
BASAPPA
S] 0. CHLNNAVEN KA'1'APl:'A,
AGED ABOUT $3 YEARS,
9"-V--.§"*""""""
®
9 S M SWAMI
$1 ().SiDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/0.Dl,NDAi)Ai~iALLY VILLAGE, 3
CIIYFRADURGA TALUK AND I)IS'I'RIC'I'. M j %
10 S M SWAMI
S/o.s11)DA1~'PA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,,*
R/QIJINDADAHALLY vu,LAQ:~a:, ._
CHITRADURGA TALUK ANn*m 3TRIc1*.-- .% 'T %
11 SMTJAYAMMA J
w1o.Gu1<Am»A,
AGED ABOUT53
K/o.u1NnAm¢s:;uw \(£L,LA{}};€;j'~_VV %
CHI'I'RADI.IRGfifTALUK'ANI)..D§S'TRIC'I'.
M
AGED ABOUT.39'YEA§:3.,* %
R]O.D;lN,DADAfi3?&LL'£.__V£LhAGE,
CIIITRA}_7_UI?,GZ'-. T"ALUK;AND mswmcr.
_,;3 *i'.£»§§Z2XGARAJA...V:v
éSfO_wRA«PPA' .. %%%%% ..
A VVAGED 'ABQUT 59 YEARS,
' K-,/0..1);.Ni).A!)AHALLY VILLAGE,
* CE~IITIQA--!3U1?GA TALUK AND I)ISTRIC'I'.
14 mm % J '=J1'XI?.1
_ S/O.(3URAPPA,
VAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
Vifi/.£).DiNDADA1*lALLY VILLAGE,
fCIII'i'RADURGA TALUK AND DIS'I'I"\'IC'I'.
V V " , M 'mg: 'I'AHS1l..DAR
Cl-11' YRADURGA TALUK,
CI IITRADURGA.
,RESPON1)EN'l'(S)
{By Sri S NAGAKAJA -35 OMKAR G FOR R1-K4)
r§""\--/~/'
CR1' FILED U /S 1 15 OF CPO AGAiNS'l' THE Oi{DE.if.{"'}e)'l'.
8.2.08 PASSED ON IA IN OS N0. 127/O2 ON THE
'i'i-.ll:s) own, JUDGE (seem), Ci-i1'1'KAJ.)Ul<GA, i)_i:~:'sM1if5$:£S:{,}
T111": IA FILED U/O VII RULE 11 (a) 83 (d).
'm1s }:'E'i'1'i'l0N COMING ON *1?H.1s._o
my, me COUl~£'i'.MAD11Z'£'HE m1,Loxvmc_;;'% is «
Petitioner Nos. 1 and i'espective1y
defendants} and 2 in 'ehailenged the
order dated by the learned
Civil Judge (hereinafter
referred to for short) rejecting the
application of under Order 7 Rule 1 1(a)
and (d) ~ of plain: in the said case.
'i'iioi1g§h'«tf;ie listed for admission it is taken up for
_fi11al of the learned advocates for both the
Vdsides are heard. All the documents
.1 ~- Vwihe Iespecdve parties to this revision petition
impugned order are perused.
V Stated in brief the facts leading to the present
xfevision petition are as under:
(\_§'"'\...----#"-»/r
(H)
The first petitioner herein namely
B.Mruthy1_1njayappa filed O.S.No.
respondent No.2 Baeappa
that he has been the ovener t of the land sy.No.2s which gebseqggeney so % be sub-divided as "ofV':Di?i2§.dstdahaHiV village of «*1'aluk'AAaiJad District Chitradiurga A inj unetion arid,' V. _'i'he" suit came to be vdudge by passing the d"'e'.':1_'ee.'oI1 27.1.2005. Aggrieved by * .- first petitioner preferred e+e<.y'.A';1?gs*'7/o5 before this Court. on 24.9.07 the said appeal was pending before this the first petitioner (appellant therein) ""v.witt3drew the said appeal and also 0.8.179/96 with liberty to file fiesh suit.
However, during the pendency of the said RFA, on 18.6.07 the fiI'St petifioner herein filed, along with his son as plaintiff Nos. 1 and '2 respectively, another suit, 0.S.No.€:6/07, against as many as 9 defendants, who are respondent Nos.5 to 14 in (-«--(\"""\._..---»x__,, 6 this revision seeking the very same relief of declaration that he is the absolute ownerV.Vof'_:l_thve very same property that was _ O.S.No.179/96 including the same: ' * annexed to the plaint herein.
relief of declaration assassins title to s r the petitioner ,.aiso regightrror the afeiier of declaration that Deed dated 10.4.20£)4;;'exectited'lésy Nos.2 to 9 in favour' "~No'."V_1':".therein in respect of a was null and void and Respondent No.2 Basappa :. was A as a defendant in the said «:.(3.;'ii$.No:66/67;"il'l'he said suit came to be decreed the learned Judge by his judgment and dated 29.9.07 as all the defendants tiiereixi (who are respondent Nos.5 to 14 herein) ' remained absent despite receipt of summons. After ceming to know of the said ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.66/07, the second respondent herein namely lrsasappa, his two brothers viz., respondent Nos. 1 and 4 respectively Guruznurthy (~----.§-\"'_'\_--»'-'\_----
(<1) rejection of the plaint therein.
and Bheemappa, and also third respondent Smt.Lakshn1a1I1ma being the wife of iate another brother of 2"" respondent, 0.8.127/07 before the same V petitioner Nos.1 and 2 .' 5103.1 and 2 and 'defeiidante "jthe e % relief of ca11ceB--,a§ion eef in
0.S.No.f)E>/O7 ofi Saree court;
seeking. and also the ,9;ft¢-:4 e to be filed by the 1-. the petitioner Nos. 1 and '2 _ therein appeared before the and their application under Order 7 e :1 and (d) read with Section 15; eye The AA Judge, by passing the impugned order Fdated 8.2.2008 rejected the said appiication. The correctness of the said order is ehajlenged in this revision petition.
8
3. Sri Ashok B.Patii, learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supret:1e»- in the case of '.r.A:-zuandandam u. r.v.sa;ggaml"i~i is another reported in AIR 1977 so 2421 smong13él[ is _..._,r-...._,,..
that on meanin ul - not formal-real! din ;oi'.. :'the_'aver5tiei;ts*?1in the Plaint it could be seen '-they" iiotteoiistituize V01': * disclose any cause of aetion a,_;fest)or:dent:5plaintiI't"s against the defendants _ to the reliefs sought for in the said counsel for the respondents, decision of the Hon'b1e soprémefl Hagar [H.K.) Ltd. 3.
ors. us. M.V.Fortune Exprws 8» are. repoxftedx iii 1828 submitted that if the eause of acfion which requires Court the plaint cannot be rejected under' .7' 1 1 ope and, whether the plajnt discloses ' " ia'«<§a1tse of setion, is a question of fact to be gathered from the V made in the entire plaint and therefore, if they are it could be seen that the plaint discloses cause of ,__,4JaCtion to the Iespondentnplaintfifs against petitioner- ' V. defendants.
9
4. Before considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties I feel that it would be to extract the relevant portions of the judgments in cases. In AIR 1977 so 2421 zé. '~ T.V.Sa.tyapal and anotheza the Hon:'t)1e:§5*s§3xerse' observed at para Nos.5 and 6 as iixiderz "
"The learned Munsfl must ofi a mea1:ai;ngful ---- not fo1'ma_1}~ It'adiI71.g"Qf the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, In-sritless',». fin the sense of not disclosing a clear sa,1e',*~ Ijfle should exercise his power u1{1de_,r11,7'CPC taking care to .,groi,md _Is.entioI1éd therein is fulfilled. iAnc3',~. ' has created the illusion of of 's.etioI1,_ nip§ it in the bud at the exéniirting the party seareiiingly urxdeaf "U. C90. 3 An activist Judge is the answer to law suits. The trial Courts would iIisist.im;5erafi'vely on examining the party at the fixsi: so that bogus litigation shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal A' is: also resoiireeftfl enough to meet such .mer_1, ((.)h,}~£i)"and must be triggered against them." . 4 * (Para 5) ' "'i'h.-e trial in this case will remind itseif of L S.35~A;,C.P.C. and take deterrent action if it is ""sAatisf1ed" that the litigation was inspiied by Qxrvexatious motives and altogether groundless." 2 * (Para 6) skssw%::1&t.eg;:eTcase of Mayer (H.K.) Ltd. and others mm 2006 so the Honfble Supreme Court has observed at para 11 as under".
11 i:3.M.Somashekarappa (defendant No.2 in the said suit) that since no decree is passed in 0.S.No.€>6/0'? against plaiI1t1':ff§,fi»no cause of action has arisen for the e--~5""'"
institute the present suitand theI'efor£:pj:t>1e '{iV.<:.e:," " = 'V 0.8.127/O7) for canceflafion of V§iatt%.eji_:A 29.9.07 passed in o.s.eo/07 d'o¢'s~._not"'sz£revive',::fo:j'warit of cause of action and, the of péira 15 is false and x A V .
6_ Order 7 R1uߢo.} 1.
"The plain; cases: (a) of action; (b) Where "t'E1é V. undervalued, .
(C) \\{here_fie3I'%é§ is property value-d....
"v..[d)"§hero the oiiitkppears from the statemant . ;'«i;Vx !:_he:pl§i:;_t to be barred by any laws"
.. (Emphasis supplied) °»._«(.)I1* 3. of the provisions of clause (a) of Rule 1 1 '€.)rd'er*- and aiso the above said avennents in the agaemtof the second petitioner sworn to in support of the k eVoeFeoapp1i¢ation under Order 7 Rule 11 cm it could be seen that is not the case of the petitioners that the averments in the plaint in the said suit do not disclose am; cause of action; on (.\__~j'*'°-'\...~----"\..-2' l2 the other hand, it is their case that 'no cause of acticn has arisen to the plaintifi' to institute the said suit Ma"
action averred in the plaint at para 15 is false _ What is required to be averted and as.sei'ted defendant in such petition under Order i'?__A.l<11le 1A'(a}' ' the plaint does not disclose "cf V-'t that ' cause of action avetrred and imaginery ' or that ' the of action to institiite the suit is done by the On perusal of para 15 of the the plaintififs have averred therein! "action has arisen to them in the third geek when defendants»-I and :2, other by canvassing in the village that stheyii ed the decree in respect of the suit application for change of katha on the of decree and therefore the plai11tifl's enquired advocate and looked into the court records and t -the applications in the Tahsildafs oflice filed by the 'defendants for change of katha of the suit schedule property.
7. As laid down by 1-:1on'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hagar (H.K.) Ltd.'s case (AIR 2006 SC 1828} refemed to 13 supra the Court has to read the entire plaint as a whoie and find out whether it discloses the cause of action for the plaintiff. Furt.her, as observed by the Hon'ble Suprexrke in the ease of turtuandandam (AIR 1977 so is also referred to supra, the reading _oftt_1e piairitii " "
'meaningful ' but not 'formal 1 on pgmsai eragafa the plaint it Could be seen tnaitng piamfies thus:
"The land béafiing stuvey No.2V3~"of...}JiI1dadahalii village 30 iaeI_es 29 guntas, earlier to""o11e'oe}:3e;i:ig'ara% Kariyappa. The said Ka-Iiyaj3pa's"' aneygtezit of 17 acres 6 guntaas in 'fa1r_ou1'¥.Vof . 4' Meke «Hanumanthappa on 4.1.1941 'who is the father of plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and" _ mutation" been accepted in M.R.No.4G~s.-'%}1vvdt.3 1.3'. 19441"
, "'l'he':., p"iaini;ifi"s"-V the successors and in °-po"s;sesEe"io1i'..of the said land continued to be in ' ';;;oe~seesion« "and enjoyment of entire survey ie..Nge.23/22 ' iv is further at paras 4 to 6 of the plaint as zmder;
"--Cfiuefendant No.1 filed a. suit 0.3.179/9e in the court of Pr1.Civi1 Judge (3;-.on.) at Chitradurga. _ the 23*' plaintiff herein for a declaration " and injunction relating to the Land bearing a. ""Sy.No.23/23:3 of Diddadahaiiy village. On full trial the IIon'bie Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant No. 1 herein was not the owner in possession of the said land which was the subject in dispute in O.S.No.179/96. The IIon'b1e Court:
{__~f"~\/"°~._.,,,.--»--»-» £4 also held in the said suit by accepting the contentions raised by the plaintiff-2 herein."
(Para, T e " Against the said judgxnent and ---:__f. 0.8.179/96 the defendant No.1 herei1':.__ filed"
Regular First Appeal before the l~ioI1'i:>'le~~ C 'i:1'1gl.1 * _ Court of Karnataka, in RFA.No. 1237/ 3005 .;agaiz1stV = the 23°' plaintiff herein. The .. -'pla'1ntifi' if 0.3.66/07 have actually misled tI1e"I.Ion'ble;_; and committed fraud in getting the deeree~».i.tl'--:at has been passed in 0.8.66/0'Z{"t.The defellrdante in o.s.ee/ o7 are colluding plainfie meyeid not appear before t11e''ee_u1't;;'d" ' ~ _ 'A ll ' * ' ""1F3i'3S5aBd 5}
8. on careful" and of the above averments at -to 6 thevlplaint filed by the respondents, in as plaintiffs, it is clear that itlAis__tl1vei'r-- that their grand. father ptuehasenfl the during the year 1941, get the his favour in the same year and, he had enjoyment of the said during his life 'after him, these respondents have been in .1 enjoyment of the same, and that the first herein filed his o.s.179/9e, claiming absolute . V Aofivnership over the said property and the same came to be ildisxnissed and the R.l<'.A.1237/05 which was filed by him aggieved by the judgment and decree of dismissal of the said (.l,._.<*v-----1__~v 15 suit also came to be dismissed as withdrawn and, during the pendency of the said RFA he filed, along with his son,' 0.8.66] 07 by suppressing the factum of pendene§V--« RFA and without impleading the second as V' ' defendant and thus obtained, defendants therein (who are the" V ex parte decree in the flthatwhe is the absolute owner in possessteeget' to which he is not entitle. V 'V t 2 2 h
9. it is the 1*" petitioner, after losing his" Basappa seeking declaratioxwrbhht he. owner of the said land and, during of his REA that was filed against the : 'A -. V _,. ,4 and "ofifdislnissal of his said suitflfixed his 0tS..6t.>_/ very relief of declaration but without En"'VV'i3nplee.d.it1gv__tE1ehA4Eilii?' respondent as a defendant therein and by h " tin the said suit the factum of pendency of the Further, though he had ahead}; filed the said , he got his K}-'A and also 0.8. 179/96 dismissed as ddiréihthdrawn with a liberty to file fie-sh suit in respect of the V. same property, without diselesing the fact that by then, he had filed the said 0.8.66/O7. Had he disclosed in his (..~_:'\-z-u»--"\Z 16 O.S.€>€>/07 the pendency of RFA er had he impleaded 2110' respondent as a defendant therein he could not have obtained ex parte decree in 0.8.66/()7, because in that event,4.the§:'i3?d respondent could have certainly brought to the . learned Judge the dismissal of O.S.1'_Z9,196 "' it the said am. Further, as could be seen sen: tiie.jud'gntient ().S.No.179,/96, a copy of w11ier1V.i:s-ieeif1ied'set::i_ ti,s;tI127_/sfz,-as the issue No. 1 therein which 'read VAa_su:"'.._Whether--.1;he,.Eplaintifi' proves that he has the properties in an auction conducted' by during the year 194€>~4rfi" iiiegative and issue No.3 therein whieh e the defendant proves that sons of name Kenchappa and Dodda \ of 17 acres 6 guntas of land Rs.€>()/- on 4.1.194 1 in favour of Meke As} o.\/addara Sanna l:5heemanna "R" was the ----~- Afiimzlativc in favour of the defendant it Thus it is clear that had the petitioner No.1 made second respondent, if not respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 also, as defendants in his subsequent suit in ().S.No.€)6/U7, the said defendant would eertainly have produced copy of the (e.___w_r"»~m\__,,_ F?
judgment in O.S.Ne.179/96 and in that event the teamed Judge would not have decreed the said suit in favo 2.? f"t1;i'eu first petifioner. Whether this conduct of the amounts to fraud committed on the cotirt, as respondent-plaintiffs, has to be decided A' Therefore, in View of all these facts it 'V could not be said, as contended for the petitioners, that the plaint " disclose any cause of action and ought to have rejected the plaiet (a) ope.
1 1. counsel for the petitioners on the decision of Horfbie Supreme Limited 1:. Debts Recovery reported in AIR 1993 so contention that the averments in the i' do"«not,.__vdiscEose the cause of action. On careful reading the said ease and also the proposition laid H.on'bie Supreme Court it could be seen that the V , V _ ' therein, the bank, had instituted the suit against the 'l."'wtiidefendant for recovery of money on the basis of letter of credit allegating that the seller did not supply the goods to the buyer <' 18 and thereby committed fraud. On those facts the HoI1'bie Supreme Court observed as under:
"An allegation of non-supply of goods by sellers to the buyers did not by itself axnount,' law, to a plea of 'fraud' as understood i13;"--tI_1iS_; ', branch of the law and hence by it characterising alleged non-movement of..goozls*~as _ 'fraud', the Bank in a suit for recovery on basis or letters of credit cannot claim that T there" _w'as\.a,_ cause of action based "Hon. A' fI'€ii_1_d--._ misrepresentation. There was alsono allegation of presentation of forged or fir§a't3.duler1t__ documents'. ' ' 'he nommovement of goods by the sellerjeetiltig be due to a variety of tenable.l'er--.i;ntenab1e reasons, the seller may be of "t_he"'eont1'act but that by itself does not ya bank to use the word 'fraud' in the plaint 'andget over any objections thatniay raisedi"'liy. of filing an applica1:ioI1.iincier._.().."7 "K. 11, GPC.""'l'hus it could be said that',."'there__ _ ieaiase of action even from the plaintallezgations, against the applicant and the 'jplaint §vo1i1ti.~1)e..c1iab1e to be rejected under 0.7 11,"CPVC._.,'l'hl.1s""it Could be said that there was no ca1.i'se_V of action even from the plaint ' . allegations, the applicant and the plaint ._ . wouid_ be -liable to be rejected under 0.7, r.11(a) as applicant." (Paras 23, 27 and 29).
sag} the above decision is of no help to the " i,jpetiti.oners' iziasmuch as the facts of the said case before the V té'{1p1'fII31€ Court are quite distinct from those in the c }§i'ESflIlt case.
12. Sri Ashok l5.l'atil, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the plaintiffs in the said ¢ l9 suit did not issue notice under Section 80 of CPU against the defendant No. 13, the Tahsildar of Chitradurga, and therefore the said suit was barred under Section 80 0390. As V. this, Sri S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for the _ plaintiffs submitted that since no renefwhstseeve;-s f.s~:sc1_1ght' as in the said suit by the pla:intifi's a_gsj:aj1st:'tf1el 're's§)oif1dei3,t+ Tahsildaa', notice under Sectior:lV_£-H}. ivas > On perusal of the averments in ass Ieliefs sought for therein it could eesees felief whatsoever is claimed against the:'defeeds;:1tiI';~so; This being so, the sutiinlssionof for the respondent plaintiffs deewes
13.; The coiuisel for the petit3'oners also urged _ did produce all the documents along es-required under Order 7 Rule 14 CPU and lllllltherefore the is liable to be rejected. This submission H cannotwhe accepted inasmuch as none of the clauses of '.1 Qrder 7 UPC provide for rejection of the plaént on the that the plaintiff did not annex to the plaint an the ldocuxnents relied upon by him.
14. Sri Ashok B.Patll, learned counsel for the petitioners, shongly urged that respondents- 1 to 4 herein, ¢__,.m..s"'--'"x_,»~--« 26 who have filed their O.S.No.127/O7 seeking cancellafipn ef decree passed in 0.8.66} 07 have no right 'file the said suit seeking the said reliefs as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was party to'{5§S'."e~€;f.O7.;.«'f}}ie_ d submitted that the deeiaration obtained byddthe in the said suit in respect of preperty the parties to the suit but -Qfesgmhdehts who were strangers to it. He further t$.1stvAA--b3?d__ViItue of Section 35 of Specific Reiief 'get; the ideelsrietien.'.1:tiede under Secfion 0".
34 in the said b1I1ds"eAriJ;711_yK;pia1*€i1"es to the suit or the persons _bfutwnet the person who is not party to it of Section 3 I of the said Act the pxesefit 1'2.7] eahnet be maintained as, any of the reliefs' the said suit cannot be granted to the 15*. the above submission of the learned 4_foz9"the petitioners, Sri S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for the 'i'*es'pT€>ndents, submitted that as provided under clause (d) ' Rijie ll of Order 7 UPC the plajnt may be rejected enly éwhen the suit apmars form the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law ' , but not on the gound that the reliefs sought for by the plaintifi' therein cannot be ganted to him. <...._.C"\"-*"'--¥%"
2:
He further submitted that none of the Sections 3 1, 34 or 35 of the Specific Relief Act bars a suit and therefore if mckpgcactifl' succeeds in estabiishing his averments made in may be entitled to such relief as he maybe fea111d.1§1esei'vijVt1g;if« not the reliefs ciaimed in the piajntz.
15. in support of his conte_,ntions; sr: ;»§s};_cs:. Vsniyctiigi * learned counsel for the petjitoners,fl§iasV_ep1aoed« on the decisions in (1') PatasibaiVuand"'bti:efsV_'r;s;c._1?eita:§iiéi2' { (1990) 2 scc
(ii) zvcgenczra Neath Datta and .-another 1'-982 CALCUTTA 163) ;
(iii) nfllcmaiaii vcmnc v. State of Andhra prcdc.sn*(,s;1.*e 293.2 CALCUTTA 157; ,-
" oPonn£i1no:1o'.i Guruvctmmal and others v. " V' others (AIR 1952 Madras 552);
Rameshrwctr v. K.C.Sethia (1944) Ltd. n {AIR 1950 Caicuttc: 702)' 3 have carefully gone through the facts and the in all the above said decisions. it is the settled . V that in a given case, if the plaintifi' establishes the averments made in his plaint which constitute cause of action for him, the C01lI't,6VCI1 if finds that the plaintiff is not entitled r--'f"' .r""~'"""' 22 to the very relief or reliefs claimed in the suit, it may mould the relief and grant the same to the plaintiff based en the established facts relevant to the suit. The plaint, cause of action, cannot be rejected on the any of reliefs claimed by the plaintfifiii. at it granted unless there is any «.
entertaining the suit itself in ofixthe far' by the piaintifl' in his suit. pf Aiiaiiabad, in the ease of Narendra u. Sukumar Chand 1994 Allahabad 1 has observed " i h "A suit cazmot be dismissed by rejection of plaint for; not havi.*1g"c1aii;aed correct relief. A relief, a plaint, can be moulded by " the if the relief, which is claimed by the i itiet proved, the Court may refuse to .g'i";4.r1t"vsi1ef;h~.'i'eiiei', but it cannot reject the plaint 'relief claimed for by the plaintifi' is not _ sfibstzizltiated by him on evidence. Moulding of relief is permissible under 0.'? R37, CPU. The ..in.elusien of cause of action in the pleadings is also not~.t.he requirement of 0.7 K11 C.P.(3. it cannot that the cause {if action has any relation it with the relief claimed."
xltihas further observed at para 33 therein as under.
"if there was any defect in the relief clause of the plaint, that could be corrected by the plaintiffs by appropriate amendment. lstvezn new the piainfifis can file an application for appropriate amendment ('A t .. \_'___x'__~m_ 23 and the Court below has to consider the desirability of allowing them to amend the plairfi, and claim the reliefs which could be gI'a_t11;t:'.C1_4 under Section 14 of the Act. For not articuiatixig. the reliefs properly the plaint Could not be__mjeCteti---- . under 0.7 K} 1(3) 0.13.0. does not eorltain ' provision by which a plaint can be_rejer_:ted "for defect in the relief claimed by the -- * _
17. Following the above vjpdfieot». of L' Court, 1 am of the considered in the present case can not be (a) or under clause ((1) of__Rule Since 1 have arnv' ed at this eonelusioii, ._i1'ot"discuss in detail the above Hoiflole Supreme Court, High Courts of tlaleutta referred to supra which are relied ugoir by the counsel for the petitioners. of rxlstforegoing discussion, 1 hold that the j~q»,;ite justified in rejecting the application of the herein (defendants in the said suit) that was nuI_lder"..0rder 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of ore. seeking rfieeflionj of the plaint. As such, the impugzed order dated 3.2.2003 passed in O.S.No.127/U7 by the Court of Civil dodge {Sr.L)n.)_. onitradurga, rejecting the said application does not call for any interference.
(_~'MJ_,.--.'/\,,..»-*\/' 24
19. Hence the present revision petition is dismissegi as being devoid of merits. in the circumstances, V. order as to costs.