Bombay High Court
M/S Alankit Healthcare Tpa Ltd., Now As ... vs M/S Nucleus It Enabled Services Ltd on 14 February, 2020
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
cra66.19.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 66 OF 2019
M/s. Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd., now known as Alankit Insurance TPA Ltd.
-Vs.-
M/s. Nulceus It Enabled Services Ltd., Mumbai
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. G.P.Belsare, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. H.R.Gadhia, counsel for the respondent.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 14.02.2020 By this revision application, the applicant (original defendant) has approached this Court challenging an order dated 03/05/2019 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) filed by the revision applicant herein, has been rejected.
2. Although the learned counsel for the rival parties have referred to various facts, suffice it to say that in the suit, the respondent (original plaintiff) has claimed that it is entitled to recover certain amounts from the revision applicant pursuant to a task allegedly undertaken by the respondent under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana. It is claimed that in pursuance of the task so completed by the respondent at the behest of the revision applicant, a specific amount is to be recovered from the revision applicant herein.
KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:32:09 ::: cra66.19.odt 2/3
3. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was filed by the revision applicant contending that the Court below did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the suit was barred by limitation, there was already an arbitration award that was passed on the very same dispute between the parties, which ultimately stood set aside by an order of the learned Single Judge at the Principal Seat of this Court, wherein it was held that there was no arbitration agreement existing between the parties in the first place. On the basis of such averments, it was claimed that the plaint deserved to be rejected at the threshold, as it was barred by limitation, absence of jurisdiction in the Court below and also on the aspect of misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. In the impugned order, the Court below has noted objections made on behalf of the revision applicant and it has come to a considered conclusion that all such contentions/ objections raised on behalf of the revision applicant can certainly be taken in the proceedings before the Court below on fullfledged trial and that it would be in the interest of justice that such issues are kept open, as they are necessarily issues concerning mixed questions of facts and law.
4. Considering the material on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. The nature of material on record and the contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties clearly indicates that even if the said objections KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:32:09 ::: cra66.19.odt 3/3 sought to be raised on behalf of the revision applicant are to be considered, proceedings in the nature of recording evidence would be necessary and by a mere reading of the plaint and the documents filed therewith, it cannot be said that power could be exercised by the Court for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In view of the above, the revision application is dismissed.
5. It is made clear that specific objections sought to be raised by the revision applicant before the Court below could be framed as issues along with the other issues by the Court below, while deciding the suit on a fullfledged trial.
6. The revision application is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:32:09 :::