Petitioner sought direction to reject a plaint for lacking cause of action. Court held that Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides the appropriate remedy within the trial court. Exercising supervisory power is not warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8922 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sobaran Singh Respondent :- Civil Judge And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The sole relief claimed is for issuing a direction to the trial court to reject the plaint of original suit no. 156 of 2016 as according to the petitioner/defendant, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.
Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the defendant has remedy of filing an application before the trial court making prayer for rejection of plaint in case it does not disclose cause of action.
Having regard to the said remedy available to the petitioner before the trial court itself, this Court is not inclined to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition is disposed of with the above observations.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 30.11.2018
skv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 regarding rejection of plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sobaran Singh
Civil Judge
2 Others
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
