Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
Even in the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandain's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, it was held that if on a meaningful-not formal- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial court should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfillled. In order to fulfilll that ground bare allegation made in the plaint and documents filed therewith were
required to be looked into, which in the instant case clearly disclosed at least a cause of action against the defendant that defendant was liable for damages for its acts of omission and commission. It would be an altogether different situation that the plaintiff might not ultimately succeed in obtaining a decree against the defendant or that Court might come to the conclusion that suit would not be maintainable against the defendant and that plaintiff had a cause of action only against defendnat's principal and its parent unit in Hong Kong, but such aspect could not have been gone into at this stage. Three paragraphs of the plaint quoted above in our view do clearly disclose cause of action for the plaintiff to claim damages.
D. Ramachandran vs R.V. Janakiraman & Ors on 11 March, 1999
No doubt that where the plaint is based on a document, the Court will be entitled to consider the said document also and ascertain if a cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, but validity of the document cannot be considered at this stage. To enable a Court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and documents accompanying the plaint only and nothing else. The Court, however, cannot look at the defense of the defendant or the documents relied upon by the defendant. See D. Ramchandran v. R. V. Janakiraman and Ors. . Learned Single Judge fell in error in placing reliance upon the material supplied by the defendant, which alone is sufficient to set aside the impugned order. Learned Single Judge instead of proceeding to reject the plaint dismissed the suit, which approach is also erroneous. The effect of dismissal of suit is altogether different and district from the effect of rejection of the plaint. In case plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filing of a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of is specifically permitted under Rule 13 of Order 7. C.P.C.Altogether different consequence follows in the event of dismissal of suit, which has the effect of precluding the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Rejection of plaint takes away the very basis of the suit rendering as if there was no suit at all or that no suit was instituted. Order of dismissal of suit while recognizing the existence of a suit indicates its termination. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. learned Single Judge ought not and could not have dismissed the suit.
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
1