Orissa High Court
Vani Nirmalya Das And vs M/S. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. .... Opposite ... on 26 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRP No.13 of 2019
(In the matter of an application under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure)
Vani Nirmalya Das and .... Petitioners
others
-versus-
M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. .... Opposite Parties
Ltd. And another
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar
Rout, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. B. Routray, Sr.
Advocate assisted by
Mr. B.P. Das,
Advocate(For O.P.
No.1)
Mr. S.S. Das, Sr.
Advocate assisted by
Ms. S. Modi,
Advocate(For O.P.
No.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing :22.07.2025/date of judgment: 26.08.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) against the Opposite Party No.1(plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) arraying the Opposite Party No.2(defendant no.4 in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2019(Annexure-4) passed in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Cuttack.
2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners (defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 pending in the court of the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Cuttack) for filing of the same is that, the Opposite party No.1 in this revision being the sole plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the petitioners and Opposite Party No.4 of this revision arraying them as defendants praying for a declaration that, the defendants have no right to deal with the suit land in any manner and also to declare that, defendant nos.1 to 3 have no right to create the sale deed or any other deed of conveyance in respect of the suit land in favour of any third party and to injunct/restrain the defendants from executing any deed of conveyance in Page 2 of 23 respect of the suit land and to declare the RSD No.1944 dated 19.07.2010 executed by the defendant nos.1 to 3 in favour of the defendant no.4 in respect of such suit land as illegal, void and to declare that, said deed has not created any title in respect of the suit land in favour of the defendant no.4 and to injunct the defendant no.4 permanently from coming upon the suit land and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land along with other relief(s), to which, the plaintiff is entitled for stating in the plaint that, the suit schedule land being the Government land, the same was leased out in favour of an unregistered firm, namely, M/s. Elbird Hatchery through its proprietor Debi Prasad Das(predecessor of defendant nos.1 to 3) in the year, 1987. The predecessor of the defendant nos.1 to 3, i.e., Debi Prasad Das was the Managing director of the plaintiff company. In that company, the father of Debi Prasad Das, i.e., Jadunath Das and Debendra Chhotray(on whose representation the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company has been filed) were the Directors.
Page 3 of 23
On the basis of an amicable decision of all the Directors/shareholders of the company, the said company, i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery was taken over by the plaintiff company, i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd. For which, the suit properties of M/s. Elbird Hatchery vested with the plaintiff company, i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd. Due to merging of M/s. Elbird Hatchery with the plaintiff company i.e., M/s. Elbird Hatchery Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff company applied for a term loan before the State Bank of India, Jagatpur Branch and obtained loan in the name of plaintiff company mortgaging the suit properties in the Bank in order to secure such loan. Father of Debi Pradas Das, i.e., Jadunath Das died on 06.12.2004. Thereafter, Debi Prasad Das died on 09.06.2007. After the death of Director and Managing Director of the plaintiff company, i.e., Jadunath Das and Debi Prasad Das respectively, the defendant no.1(wife of Debi Prasad Das) applied for mutation of the suit land to her name initiating Mutation Case No.57 of 2008 before the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar. The said Mutation Case was rejected. Thereafter, she(defendant no.1) again filed another Page 4 of 23 Mutation Case No.2473 of 2008 before the same Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar, but, the same was allowed and RoR of the suit land was corrected to the name of the defendant no.1. In that Mutation Case No.2473 of 2008, the plaintiff company was not impleaded, though the plaintiff company is the lessee of the suit land and the defendant no.1 had managed to correct that RoR of the suit land to her name suppressing the material facts without following due process of law. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff company filed another Mutation Case No.139 of 2008 before the same Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar for correction of RoR of the suit land to its name, but that Mutation Case was dropped as per order dated 02.02.2009. For which, the plaintiff company preferred a mutation appeal vide Mutation Appeal No.29 of 2009 before the Sub- collector, Cuttack and that Mutation Appeal No.29 of 2009 was disposed of on 26.05.2010 directing the Tahasildar, Tangi Choudwar to prepare the RoR of the suit land in the status of Pattadar after modifying the order passed in Mutation Case No.2473 of 2008 and directed the plaintiff company to approach the lease sanctioning authority for Page 5 of 23 modification of the lease order of the suit land. Accordingly, plaintiff company approached the lease sanctioning authority, i.e., Collector, Cuttack for modification of the lease of the suit land, which is under process and pending for consideration.
3. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff company came to know that, the defendant nos.1 to 3 have sold the land of the plaintiff company, i.e., to the suit land to the defendant no.4 through RSD No.1944 dated 19.07.2010 illegally behind the back of plaintiff company giving without delivery of possession of the suit land to the defendant no.4, because, the plaintiff company is in possession over the suit land being the actual lessee of the same. The so-called Sale Deed No.1944 dated 19.07.2010 said to have been executed by the defendant nos.1 to 3 in favour of the defendant no.4 in respect of the suit land is illegal and void ab initio. For which, the plaintiff company filed the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants praying for the relief(s) indicated above in Para No.2 of this judgment.
In the said suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010, filed by the plaintiff company, the defendant nos.1 to 3 filed a petition Page 6 of 23 on dated 30.11.2010 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff company on the ground that, the plaintiff company has no locus standi to file the suit and there is no cause of action for the plaintiff company to file the suit against the defendants stating that, the plaintiff company was incorporated on dated 19.06.1987 with the association of three individuals, i.e., Jadunath Das, Debi Prasad Das and Debendra Chhotray, in which, Jadunath Das was the life time Chairman and Debi Prasad Das was the Managing Director. After the death of Jadunath Das on dated 06.12.2004 and Debi Prasad Das on dated 09.06.2007, their vacancies were not filled up. For which, the existing Director of the plaintiff company became less than two. Therefore, the plaintiff company lost its status as a Private Limited Company as per Company Act. So, steps should have been taken as per Section 439(d) of the Companies Act for winding up the plaintiff company. The suit properties were the personal properties of Debi Prasad Das(predecessor of the defendant nos.1 to 3). As the said Debi Prasad Das was the Managing Director of the plaintiff Page 7 of 23 company, for which, in order to secure the loan for the plaintiff company as well as for its promotion, he(Debi Prasad Das) had voluntarily given his private properties, i.e., suit properties as co-lateral security to the Bank in order to avail the loan for the plaintiff company. Therefore, the suit properties were the personal properties of Debi Prasad Das(predecessor of the defendant nos.1 to 3). After the death of Debi Prasad Das, the suit properties devolved upon his successors, i.e., defendant nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff company was/is neither the owner nor the lessee of the suit properties. The defendant nos.1 to 3 being the owners of the suit properties after the death of its owner Debi Prasad Das as his successors, they have duly and lawfully alienated/transferred the suit properties in favour of the defendant no.4 executing and registering the Sale Deed No.1944 dated 19.07.2010 and giving delivery of possession thereof in favour of the defendant no.4. Since the date of purchase, i.e., since 19.07.2010, the defendant no.4 has been possessing the suit properties exclusively being the exclusive owner of the same. So, the plaintiff company has no cause of action for filing the suit against the defendants. Page 8 of 23 The plaintiff company has no locus standi to file the suit against the defendants, because, the plaintiff company has lost its status as a private limited company since 09.06.2007.
4. To which, the plaintiff company objected stating that, the provisions laid down in Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 do not provide for rejection of plaint on the ground of locus standi. The same issue concerning locus standi can only be decided in the judgment after trial of the suit.
The plaint also cannot be rejected on the ground of lack of cause of action. Because, the plaintiff company has disclosed cause of action in Para No.19 of its plaint in a vivid and descriptive manner. For which, the plaint of the plaintiff cannot be held as defective for non-disclosure of cause of action. The contentions raised in the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant nos.1 to 3 for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff company can only be answered in the judgment of the suit after its trial, framing issues in respect of the same. For which, the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by Page 9 of 23 the defendant nos.1 to 3 for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff company is liable to be rejected.
5. After hearing from both the sides, learned trial court rejected to the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant nos.1 to 3 on dated 22.07.2019 assigning the reasons that, "entitlement of the plaintiff to get the reliefs" is a matter, which can only be decided in the judgment of the suit after its trial. The claim of the defendant nos.1 to 3 to reject the plaint of the plaintiff company on the ground of non- disclosure of cause of action cannot be acceptable under law. Because, cause of action comprises a bundle of facts and the same can only be ascertained after appreciation of evidence of both the sides, which is after completion of trial.
In the plaint filed by the plaintiff company, cause of action has been disclosed in Para No.19 of the said plaint. For which, the plaint of the plaintiff is not bad for non- disclosure of cause of action. Therefore, the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the defendant nos.1 to 3 is rejected.
6. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order dated 22.07.2019 passed in C.S. No.594 of 2010 by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Cuttack Page 10 of 23 rejecting the petition for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant nos.1 to 3, they (defendant nos.1 and 3) challenged the same by filing this revision being the petitioners against the plaintiff arraying the plaintiff company as Opposite Party No.1 and also arraying defendant no.4 as Opposite Party No.2.
7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010) and the learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.1(plaintiff) and the learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.2(defendant no.4).
8. In order to assail the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Opposite Party No.4 relied upon the following decisions:-
(i) Value Advisory Services P. Ltd. Vrs. Registrar of Companies and another : reported in (2011) 165 Comp Cas-189
(ii) M/s. Nibro Limited vrs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. : reported in AIR 1991 Delhi-25.
(iii) Rajendra Bajoria and othes vrs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others : reported in Civil Appeal Nos.5819-5822 of 2021.
9. In support of the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 passed in C.S. No.594 of 2010, learned senior counsel for Page 11 of 23 the Opposite Party No.1(plaintiff) relief upon the following decisions :-
(i) H.S. Deekshit and another vrs. M/s. Met Ropoli Overseas Limited and others : reported in 2022 LiveLaw(SC)-703.
(ii) Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited vrs.
Ashok Vidyarthi and others : reported in (2023) SCC Online SC-1612.
(iii) NU Vista Ltd., erstwhile known as M/s. Emami Cement Ltd. At Kalinga Nagar Industrial Comples, Jajpur vrs. Damodar Behera and others (decided on 31.01.2025 in CRP No.5 of 2022)
(iv) Niharkanti Mishra vrs. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik and others (decided on 03.04.2025 in CRP No.19 of 2024)
10. On the basis of the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1), the petition under Order- 7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the defendant nos.1 to 3(petitioners in this revision), objection against the same filed by the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1 in this revision), findings and observations made by the learned trial court in the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 and the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this revision is that, whether the plaint of the plaintiff (Opposite Party No.1 in this revision) vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 is liable to be rejected on the ground of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff Page 12 of 23 to institute the suit and non-disclosure of correct cause of action therein by the plaintiff company ?
11. It has been clarified by the Apex Court in Para No.20 of the judgment dated 21.09.2021 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.5819-5822 of 2021 between Rajendra Bajoria and others vrs. Hemanta Kumar Jalan and others relied by the learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.2(defendant no.4) that, "in order to decide a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of plaint, only scrutinizing the averments of the plaint is required under law in order to see, whether the suit is barred by any law and when, the plaint does not discloses a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract proceedings, because, it is necessary to put an end to the said litigation, so that, further judicial time is not wasted."
12. Here in this matter at hand, the defendant nos.1 to 3(petitioners in this revision) filed a petition on dated 30.11.2010 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Page 13 of 23 Party No.1 in this revision) under the following two grounds, i.e.,:-
(i) The plaintiff company has no locus standi to institute the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010;
and
(ii) The plaintiff company has no cause of action to file the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants.
13. It is very fundamental in law that, at the time of consideration of a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the defendant or defendants for rejection of the plaint, only the averments made in the plaint is to be taken into consideration, but, neither the written statement nor any possible plea of the defendant or defendants.
14. It is the settled propositions of law that, for taking decision on a petition/application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the defendant or defendants, the court shall presume to the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff are true and correct.
Assuming the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint as correct, petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the Page 14 of 23 C.P.C., 1908 of the defendants for rejection of the plaint shall be decided/adjudicated.
15. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Rohit Shekhar vrs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari : reported 2010(2) Civil Court Cases-
452(Delhi) (D.B.)--That, at the time of consideration of the application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908, plaint allegations has to be presumed to be correct.
(ii) In a case between Pramod Gupta vrs. Ramesh Power Product Private Ltd. and another: reported in 2013(1) Civil Court Cases-533(Delhi)--that, for the decision on the petition/application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908, Court has to assume that, the averments made in the plaint are true and correct and on that basis the application under Order-7, Rule- 11 of the C.P.C. is to be decided.
So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is the duty of the courts to assume that, the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff are true for deciding the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant or defendants for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff.
16. Now, it will be seen, whether the first ground raised on behalf of the defendants(petitioners in this revision) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1), i.e., the plaintiff company has no locus standi to institute Page 15 of 23 the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants is concerned !
17. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between A Selvamani and another vrs. D. Sundharavalli and another : reported in (2016) SCC Online(Madras)-20565 (at Para no.50)--
That, the question of locus standi of the plaintiff cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint.
(ii) In a case between Ramesh Sriram Sule vrs. Dilipraj Nirjankumar Goenka and others : reported in 2009(1) Civil Court Cases-545(Bombay Nagpur Bench) that, even the suit is instituted by a wrong person, said suit could not be said to be barred by a law, because, when the plaint is instituted by a wrong person, it cannot be said that, the suit is barred by any law or the Court is prevented from taking cognizance of such a suit, because, defect in such a case can be cured under Order-1, Rule-10 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(iii) In a case between Mega Suryaurja Private Ltd. and another vrs. Bhanwar Singh and others :
reported in 2024(2) Civil Court Cases-377(Rajasthan) that, suit whether maintainable in terms of law and whether power of attorney holder has a locus standi to prefer the suit cannot be decided on an application filed under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
In view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, this first ground raised by the defendant nos.1 to 3 (petitioners in this revision), i.e., the plaint of the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1) is liable to be rejected on the ground of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff company to institute the suit cannot be sustainable under Page 16 of 23 law. For which, the reasons assigned by the learned trial court for non-acceptance of this ground raised by the defendant nos.1 to 3(petitioners in this revision) in their petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff company cannot be held as erroneous.
18. So far as the 2nd ground raised by the petitioners (defendant nos.1 to 3) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff company, i.e., the plaintiff company has no cause of action for filing the suit against the defendants is concerned ! Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact.
Whether cause of action exist in the plaint of the plaintiff or cause of action does exist therein must be found out from the readings of the plaint.
19. 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 Bhanusali(Gajra) Dead through Legal representatives and others : reported in (2020) 7 Page 17 of 23 SCC-366 that, whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not, for rejection of the plaint under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908, is essentially a question of fact, but, whether it does exist or does not exist must be found out from the readings of the plaint itself.
(ii) In a case between Hardesh Ores(P) Ltd. vrs.
Hede and Company : reported in (2007) 5 SCC-614-- That, it is not permissible under law for the rejection of the plaint under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 by culling out a sentence or passage from a plaint.
(iii) In a case between Krishan Kumar and others vrs. Naveen Kumar and others : reported in 2018(4) Civil Court Cases-685(P&H) that, non-maintainability of suit cannot be entertained under the scope of Order- 7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(iv) In a case between Smt. Y. Anisha Reddy and others vrs. Sri K.V. Narasimha Reddy and others :
reported in 2024(1) Civil Court Cases-419(Telengana) that, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground that, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
20. It is the settled proposition of law that, the plaint can be rejected, only when, it does not disclose cause of action. But, when it is alleged by the defendants that, the plaint is averred with false cause of action, the same will meet its consequences at the end of the trial of the suit, but not before that.
There is distinction between non-disclosure of cause of action and non-existence of cause of action.
Non-disclosure of cause of action would fall within the ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of the plaint, but, not the non-existence of cause of action. Page 18 of 23
21. When, the plaint discloses cause of action, the same must be tried for substantial justice between the parties, because, success or un-success of cause of action is a matter of trial of the suit.
22. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Sadam Naga Raju vrs. Muvva Madhavi and others : reported in 2024(2) Civil Court cases-513(Andhra Pradesh) that, a plaint can be rejected only when it failed to disclose cause of action and not when it averred with a false cause of action. A false cause of action is one that, suit will meet its consequence at the end of suit.
(ii) In a case between Kailash Mundra vrs. Rinku Mundra and another : reported in 2024 (3) Civil Court Cases(Rajasthan) that, non-disclosure of cause of action, can entail for rejection of plaint, but, when plaint discloses cause of action, the same must be tried for substantial justice between the parties. Success of cause of action is a matter of trial. Petition under Order-
7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 rightly dismissed.
(iii) In a case between Kishore Kumar vrs. Ishar Dass : reported in 2024(4) CCC-123(J&K) that, plaint cannot be rejected for non-existence of cause of action, but, the same can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action.
(iv) In a case between Jageswari Devi and others vrs. Shatrughan Ram(D.B.) : reported in (2007) 15 SCC-52 that, there is distinction between non- disclosure of cause of action and non-existence of cause of action. Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of the plaint, but, the 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 the plaint.
Page 19 of 23
(v) In a case between Niharkanti Mishra vrs. Nihar Ranjan Pattnaik and others : reported in 2024(2) CCC-37(Orissa)--Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. Whether cause of action does exist or does not exist in the plaint, the same must be found from the readings of plaint itself. If the plaint discloses cause of action, the same cannot be rejected under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908. Because, the plaint can be rejected only on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action, but, not on the ground of non-existence of cause of action.
(vi) In a case between Yudhishthir Singh and others vrs. District Judge and others : reported in 2019(2) Civil Court Cases-110(Allahabad) that, when plaint disclosing cause of action, but, mere fact that, in the opinion of the Judge, plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. Because, validity or invalidity of cause of action not to be decided at the time of consideration of the petition under Order- 7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 .
(vii) In a case between Nanji Sunderji Sejpal vrs. Vithuram Shivlal Lahoti Denagi Trust and others :
reported in 2019 Civil Court Cases-147(Bombay) that, unless petitioner makes out a case that, the plaint in the present case fails to disclose cause of action, there is no question of rejection of the plaint.
(viii) In a case between Archana Mittal and others vrs. Shikha Mittal : reported in 2021(3)Civil Court Cases(Delhi)-261(Para No.7) that, if averments in plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action, at that stage, Court cannot be embark upon an enquiry on the truth of allegations for rejection of the plaint under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(ix) In a case between Sukruti Dugal vrs. Jahnavi Dugal and others: reported in 2020(3) Civil Court Cases-555(Delhi)(D.B.) that, once the averments made by the plaintiff, disclosed a right to sue, the plaint could not have been rejected for want of cause of action by undertaking a detailed analysis of averments made therein and going through documents filed by the plaintiff with toothcomb to adjudge their correctness or authenticity.
(x) In a case between Mohammad Amin Bhat vrs.
State of Jammu and Kashmir and others : reported in 2012(9) Law digital.in-750(J&K)--Plaint can be Page 20 of 23 rejected when it does not disclose the cause of action, but, when on perusal of the plaint, it clearly shows as to how cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff, then whether the same is true or incorrect is a question for trial, but, not for rejection of plaint under Order-7, Rule- 11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(xi) In a case between Urvashiben and another vrs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi : reported in 2019(1) Apex Court Judgment(S.C.)-371 that, merits and demerits of the matter cannot be gone into at the stage, while deciding an application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.
(xii) In a case between P.E. Thomas and others vrs. Abraham Jose Rocky and others : reported in 2020(1) Civil Court Cases-832(Kerala)(D.B.) that, the grounds raised in an application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 could be answered only after trial of the case. Such grounds/issues cannot be pre-judged merely by looking into the plaint issues.
(xiii) In a case between Mewa Singh and others vrs. Tehal Singh and others : reported in 2023(3) Civil Court Cases-202(P&H)--When, the pleas raised in the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of the plaint cannot be appreciated properly without recording evidence, then at this stage, it cannot be said that, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or that suit is barred by limitation.
23. Here in this matter at hand, when in Para No.19 of the plaint of the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company has disclosed descriptively about the cause of action for filing of the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants, then at this juncture, it cannot be said that, the plaint of the plaintiff company is bad for non-disclosure of cause of action.
Page 21 of 23
So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the plaint of the plaintiff company filed in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010, it cannot be held that, the plaintiff company has no cause of action for filing the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants. For which, the plaint of the plaintiff company cannot be liable for rejection on the ground that, the plaintiff company has no cause of action to file the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 against the defendants.
24. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned trial court in the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 rejecting the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendants(petitioners in this revision) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff company (Opposite Party No.1 in this revision) cannot be held as erroneous.
Therefore, there is no justification under law for making interference with the impugned order through this revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010).
Page 22 of 23
So, there is no merit in the revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3). The same must fail.
25. In result, this revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.1 to 3) is dismissed on contest.
The learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit vide C.S. No.594 of 2010 pending in its court as expeditiously as possible following the directions/guidelines of the Apex Court for early disposal of the pending suits.
26. As such, this revision filed by the petitioners (defendant nos.1 to 3) is disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 26TH of August, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 26-Aug-2025 18:27:12 Page 23 of 23