Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the question as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not for the purposes of Clause (a) of Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. should be decided on the face of the averments made in the plaint. On the other hand the argument of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner is that not only the plaint but the documents filed along with the plaint should be looked into to determine the question as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not. The learned District Judge held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and rejected the plaintiff's application filed under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Under the aforesaid provision, a person having interest in a public trust or otherwise, may apply to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department for permission to apply to the Court for directions and if such an application is made, then the Court shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 40 of the Act. It is not in dispute in the present case that the petitioner Bhagwandas submitted on application before the Asst. Commissioner seeking permission under Section 38 of the Act and that by the order dated 24-11-1981 the Assistant Commissioner granted permission directing Bhagwandas to apply to the Court for such directions, as the Court may give according to Section 40. Bhagwandas submitted an application on 4-12-1981 before the learned District Judge. The opposite party objected to the maintainability of the application filed by Bhagwandas under Section 38 of the Act on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action. It was urged on behalf of the opposite party that under Section 38 the Assistant Commissioner could give permission or direction to a person to file an application before the Court only after giving the working trustees an opportunity of being heard and as it did not appear from the face of the application as well as from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan that any such opportunity was given to the opposite party of being heard, the permission given by the Assistant Commissioner to Bhagwandas by his order dated 24-11-1981 was invalid or void and no application could be maintained by Bhagwandas before the learned District Judge, on the basis of such an invalid permission given by the Assistant Commissioner.

4. Now, what the learned counsel for the opposite party urges is that while looking into the averments made in the plaint, for the purpose of determining the question whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not, the document, namely, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 24-11-1981 should also be looked into. Not only that the said document should be looked into, but it is further argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that at the stage of deciding whether the plaint (application under Section 38 of the Act filed before the learned District Judge) discloses a cause of action or not, the Court should proceed to decide the question as to whether the working trustee was given an opportunity of hearing or not and thereby decide the question of the alleged invalidity of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner to Bhagwandas under Section 38 of the Act. If the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party is accepted, then all questions of law and fact, which relate to the validity of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner to Bhagwandas under Section 38 of the Act, including the question as to whether the working trustee was given an opportunity of hearing or not and whether the person who submitted the application before the Assistant Commissioner had any interest in the public trust or not and the like questions, should also be determined before the plaint could be entertained, as disclosing a cause of action.

5. It may be observed that the plea that there is no cause of action for filing the suit is very different from the plea that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. What the learned counsel urges is that there was no cause of action for filing the suit, as the permission given by the Assistant Commissioner, which is a condition precedent to the filing of an application under Section 38 before the learned District Judge, was invalid or void. But what Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. postulates is that at the preliminary stage the Court is only to see from the averments made in the plaint as to whether, on the face of such averments, a cause of action is disclosed or not. As the question which has been raised by the learned counsel relates to the invalidity of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner it may raise a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact for determination. It may be open to the petitioner to show that a notice or an opportunity of hearing was given to the opposite party by the Assistant Commissioner. Alternatively, it could be urged that once a person was granted permission by the Assistant Commissioner to seek directions from the Court, then it was not necessary to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the working trustee while granting permission to another person in respect of the same cause of action. In any view of the matter, the question which is to be determined at the present stage of the case is as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not and at such a preliminary stage it cannot be decided as to whether the permission given by the Assistant Commissioner to Bhagwandas under Section 38 of the Act is valid in law or not.