Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)

M/S. Crescent Petroleum Ltd. vs M.V. "Monchegorsk" & Another on 23 September, 1999

5. It is no longer res integra that the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it "does not disclose a cause of action" can be done only in exceptional Civil Suit No.70/13 Shree Yogmaya Deity & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Vats Page 2 of 4 circumstances where the court is absolutely sure that on a meaningful reading of the plaint it does not make out any cause of action and thus the power should be exercised sparingly. Strength for the proposition is also derived from the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in M/s. Crescent Petroleum Ltd. Vs. "MONCHEGORSK" cited as AIR 2000 Bom 161. It is also a settled proposition of law that for the purpose of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only the averments in the plaint as well as the accompanying documents are to be looked into. The defence of the defendant is immaterial at this stage as Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is based on the plea of demurer where the averments in the plaint are accepted to be true and if even thereafter, no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 25 - S S Nijjar - Full Document
1