Allahabad High Court
Hare Ram Singh And Another vs Ram Dayal Singh And 2 Others on 18 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 6 Reserved Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 119 of 2022 Revisionist :- Hare Ram Singh And Another Opposite Party :- Ram Dayal Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Satyash Chandra Maurya,Siddharth Niranjan Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by Ms. Indira Singh, Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Deoria, rejecting an application by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC made in Suit No. 1 of 2017, under Section 92.
2. The suit aforesaid was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents with leave of the Court seeking relief to the effect that the defendants be removed from the post of Sarvarakar of the temple of Shivji Maharaj, Devshala, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, District Deoria and that the said defendants be directed to render accounts and further to frame a scheme of management to manage the temple aforesaid and agricultural land that was debutter, owned by the Deity Shivji Maharaj.
3. The defendant-revisionists moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint on a bare reading of it and that, therefore, it was fit to be rejected without trial.
4. The plaintiff-respondents filed their objections saying that on account of a typographical error, the formal paragraph relating to the cause of action could not be transcribed in the plaint and for the purpose, they have sought an amendment by a separate application dated 16.03.2022. The cause of action, on a reading of the plaint, was substantially disclosed. The plaint was not one where on a reading of it, it may be held as one not disclosing a cause of action worth trial. The learned Additional District Judge, who is in seisin of the suit, heard the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and opined that looking to the facts pleaded and the reliefs claimed, it cannot be said that no cause of action is disclosed.
5. The objections that the date of cause of action was not disclosed was dealt with by the learned Judge holding that the said omission was sought to be cured by the plaintiffs, seeking an amendment to the plaint to include the formal paragraph relating to the cause of action, which was pending. Apparently, the learned Judge was not inclined to throw out the suit at the threshold for the typographical infirmity of non-inclusion of the formal paragraph relating to the cause of action, where the date when it arose, would be specifically mentioned, of course, founded on the substantial pleadings. The Trial Judge, accordingly, proceeded to reject the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and has directed the suit to proceed.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision has been preferred by the defendants.
7. Heard Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the revisionists in support of the motion to admit this revision to hearing and Mr. D.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mangal Rai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents.
8. A perusal of the averments in the plaint show that the suit has been brought on allegations that the temple of Shivji Maharaj is situate near the bank of river Sarju, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, Tehsil Barhaj, District Deoria. It has idols of Ram, Lakshman and Janki. The temple is quite ancient and commands faith of a multitude of worshipers, who visit the temple for Darshan and Pooja of the Deities. It is pleaded that the owner and Mahant of the temple, bearing in mind the faith of the public in general, created a religious endowment on 04.04.1955 by a registered deed. He appointed Mahendra Singh as the Sarvarakar of the Deities and dedicated property for the upkeep of the temple and the Deities.
9. It is further pleaded that in the revenue records, the agricultural land, dedicated to the temple as debutter, shows it to be a public endowment/ trust, created for the benefit of the public in general, who have faith in the Hindu religion and the temple. The land that is debutter is about 60 bighas-all agricultural. The produce of the debutter is sold in the market and proceeds applied for sewa, pooja of the Deities in the temple. The practice is said to be observed for a long time.
10. It is the plaintiffs' case that the father of the defendants, who are the revisionists here, had forsaken the interest of the Deities and used the debtter for his personal benefit. There are other allegations about breach of trust and misappropriation of moneys, besides mismanagement of the affairs of the temple. It is on these allegations that the suit has been instituted for the relief of removal of the defendant-revisionists from the post of Sarvarakar and rendition of actions by them, regarding the income and expenditure of properties of the trust and the framing of a new scheme of management to manage the temple and the debuter for the benefit of the Deities and the temple of Shivji Maharaj.
11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Satish Chaturvedi as well as those in reply by Mr. D.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate.
12. This Court finds that the principle dealing with motions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are too well settled to brook doubt. It is a reading of the plaint alone and not a consideration of the defendants' case, which is relevant to decide if the plaint indeed deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. It is the aforesaid clause of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC that has been invoked by the plaintiffs; not the others. The mere fact that the formal paragraph relating to the cause of action is not mentioned in the plaint, would not be fatal to the maintainability of the suit, particularly so, as the plaintiff-respondents have made an application seeking to amend the plaint and include the formal paragraph relating to the cause of action, which they say was left out on account of a typographical error and by inadvertence.
13. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly remarked following the decision of this Court in Satish Kumar vs. Saleem Beg @ Babboo and 7 others, 2016 (2) ARC 104 that the Trial Court, before deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, can permit the plaintiff to remove defects in the plaint. The Trial Court, in our opinion, has rightly taken cognizance of the pending amendment application while dealing with motion under Order VII Rule 11 PC, though ideally the amendment application ought to have been disposed of before taking up the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
14. Considering the plaint as a whole, in the clear opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that it does not disclose a cause of action. The mere omission of the formal paragraph relating to the cause of action in the plaint, cannot be a ground to reject it, particularly pending the amendment application to incorporate the relevant paragraphs.
15. The submission of Mr. Chaturvedi that the amendment application has not yet been allowed and pending that application, the plaint is liable to be rejected, is not tenable. Though this Court has remarked that the application for amendment should have been dealt with first by the Trial Court, but the failure to do so, would not render the plaint liable to be rejected. It would be a different case if the plaint, on a wholesome reading of it, did not disclose a cause of action. This is a case of omission of the formal paragraph relating to the cause of action, which is not a substantial defect, going to the root of the matter and adversely affecting the maintainability of the action. If the submissions of the defendants were to be accepted, a mere inadvertent omission of a formal paragraph would lead to a rejection of the plaint and the action being thrown out without trial. This is certainly not the purpose or scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
16. In the circumstances, this Court finds no force in this revision, which is dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 18.11.2022 Anoop