Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Steel Authority Of India Ltd. And Ors. vs Rameshwar Dass Bishan Dayal And Anr. on 1 September, 1995
4. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and
carefully perused the record. It is pertinent to note that a suit can be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only when the plaint does not
disclose a cause of action. It has been reiterated in a number of
authorities that averments of the WS are not to be gone into when
deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The question
whether plaint discloses any cause of action is to be decided by looking in
Suit no. 230/10 Page no. 2 of 5
the plaint itself. What is to be seen is whether or not meaningful reading
of the plaint discloses the cause of action. It has been held that while
considering the application under this provision, strengths and
weaknesses of the case of the plaintiff is not be seen. Reliance is placed
on Steel Authority of India vs. Ramesh War Dass Bishan Dayal
reported as 60 (1995) DLT 271, 278 (DB) and Punjab National Bank
vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. reported as 20021 (3) CCC 358 (373).
M/S. Crescent Petroleum Ltd. vs M.V. "Monchegorsk" & Another on 23 September, 1999
In
case of Crescent Petroleum Ltd. vs. M.V. "Monchegorsk" reported as
AIR 2000 Bombay 161(168) it was held that the phrase "does not
disclose the cause of action" has to be very narrowly construed. The
rejection of the plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences
and hence, the provision must be resorted to only in cases where the
plaintiff does not have an arguable case at all.
1