Dismissed¶10

Pushpita Veenesh Sinha v. Veenesh Chandrabhushan Sharan Priyadarshi (Sinha)

Bombay HC4 Mar 2025CRA/161/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; CRA No.161 of 2025; M.M. Sathaye, J.; decided 18.03.2025; rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 115 CPC revisional jurisdiction; cause of action bundle of facts; mere threat as cause of action; limitation mixed question of fact and law; non-suiting plaintiff at threshold; defamation injunction suit between spouses; FIR copies circulated to neighbours and ex-colleagues; S.C. Suit No.1753 of 2023; Notice of Motion No.3120 of 2023; City Civil Court Dindoshi order dated 03.09.2024; suit transferred from Bengaluru to Mumbai on Supreme Court orders; Rs.5 lakh compensation for loss of reputation; CRA dismissed with no order as to cost.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Application was dismissed with no order as to cost, leaving the impugned order undisturbed. ¶10

Pushpita Veenesh Sinha vs Veenesh Chandrabhushan Sharan Priyadarshi (Sinha) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Civil Revision Application was dismissed with no order as to cost, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in S.C. Suit No.1753 of 2023 discloses a cause of action so as to withstand rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. +2 more

¶3

Court's answer

Paragraph 11 of the plaint sufficiently indicates that some incident took place in 2021 regarding which an FIR was filed and its copies were allegedly circulated to neighbours and ex-colleagues (along with newspaper articles of court judgments and marriage pictures shared with neighbours), causing mental agony to the Plaintiff; accordingly it cannot be said that there is no cause of action to reject the plaint.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

At this stage it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation merely relying on the pleadings.

¶7

Key takeaways

The issue of limitation is tritely a mixed question of fact and law; with the pleadings as they exist, the Plaintiff cannot be non-suited at the stage of Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.ratio¶7
Merely because a cause of action of the year 2016 is mentioned, it would not take the suit out of limitation, especially when a cause of action in the year 2021 is also stated in paragraph 11 of the plaint.ratio¶8
The argument that a mere threat by the Defendant does not constitute any cause of action is without merit; threat is part of the bundle of facts that constitutes a cause of action, and therefore the overall pleadings of the plaint must be taken into account.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.M. Sathaye, J.) dismisses Civil Revision Application No.161 of 2025 filed by the wife (applicant, original defendant in S.C. Suit No.1753 of 2023) against the City Civil Court, Dindoshi order dated 03.09.2024 rejecting her application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in her husband's suit seeking a permanent injunction against alleged defamatory statements and Rs.5 lakh compensation; the suit was originally filed at Bengaluru and stood transferred to Mumbai. Held: (i) paragraph 11 of the plaint sufficiently indicates a 2021 incident — filing of an FIR and circulation of its copies to neighbours and ex-colleagues, with newspaper articles of court judgments and marriage pictures shared with neighbours, causing mental agony — so the suit cannot be rejected for want of cause of action; (ii) a 2016 cause of action additionally pleaded does not take the suit out of limitation when a 2021 cause of action is also stated; (iii) limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and, on the pleadings as they exist, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited at the Order VII, Rule 11 stage; (iv) a mere threat by the defendant forms part of the bundle of facts constituting cause of action and overall pleadings must be considered; (v) the Trial Court having taken an overall view, there is no perversity, apparent error or jurisdictional error, and given the limited jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC no interference is called for.

¶1

50 CRA-161-2025 C.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN RAHAMAN NADAF NADAF Date: 2025.03.20 10:09:21 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2025

¶5

Pushpita Veenesh Sinha ...Applicant Versus Veenesh Chandrabhushan Sharan Priyadarshi (Sinha) ...Respondent ***

¶6

Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj, for Applicant. Ms. Meenaz Kakalia, for Respondent No.1.

¶7

¶8

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 18^th MARCH, 2025

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Applicant is wifeoriginal Defendant and Respondent is husband-original Plaintiff in S.C. Suit No.1753 of 2023. Applicant is challenging the Order dated 03.09.2024 passed by City Civil Court Mumbai at Dindoshi, rejecting the Applicant’s motion for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short).

¶11

The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the Applicant wife from making any defamatory statements against the Respondent husband or his family in print, in electronic or digital medium, in organisations where the Respondent is or will be employed or in any other manner. The suit further seeks compensation of Rs.5 lakh towards loss of reputation, hardship and mental trauma. The suit originally was filed in the Court at Bengaluru and has traveled to the Court at Mumbai under the orders of the Supreme Court and other Courts.

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

Husen

¶14

50 CRA-161-2025 C.doc

¶15

The Applicant took out a Notice of Motion No.3120 of 2023 for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”, for short). The case of the Applicant is that there is no cause of action disclosed in the plaint and that the suit is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the Applicant, on instructions submits that though there are other grounds taken seeking rejection of plaint, viz. under-valuation of the suit as well as this being second suit on the same cause of action, they are not being pressed.

¶16

Inviting the Court’s attention to paragraph No.18 of the plaint it is contended that the first cause of action disclosed is of 2016 which was about a false police complaint and therefore the suit filed in 2021 based on that cause of action is barred by limitation. Inviting the Court’s attention to paragraph No.16 of the plaint it is submitted that the incident of 04.09.2021 is only about the Defendant allegedly threatening to defame the Plaintiff and mere threat would not constitute a cause of action. It is therefore submitted that the plaint neither discloses cause of action nor is filed in limitation.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has supported the impugned order and has pointed out from paragraph No.11 of the plaint that it is specifically pleaded that the Defendant had forwarded the copy of the FIR filed in 2021 to the neighbor of the Plaintiff and has also shared newspaper articles of prior court judgments, marriage pictures along with the other details to a neighbor. It is pointed out that in paragraph No.11, it is stated that this has caused mental agony, anguish and depression. Also, it is submitted that since the FIR number is stated which is of the year

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

Husen

¶20

50 CRA-161-2025 C.doc

¶21

2021, the suit filed in the same year cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation. It is further submitted that cause of action is a bundle of facts presented and has to be understood from the over-all reading of the pleadings.

¶22

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is to be borne in mind that provision of Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC have to be applied to the fact of the case, keeping in mind that a party is non-suited without trial if the plaint is rejected.

¶23

Perusal of the paragraph No.11 of the plaint sufficiently indicates that some incident has taken place in 2021 regarding which FIR has been filed and its copies are allegedly circulated to neighbors and ex-colleagues causing mental agony, anguish and depression to the Plaintiff. It is also averred that newspaper articles of court judgments and marriage pictures are also shared/circulated with neighbors. Suit is filed in 2021. Considering this, it cannot be said at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation, merely relying on the pleadings. In any case, it is trite that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and with the pleadings as they exist, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff in this case can be non-suited at the stage of Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.

¶24

So far as the argument about cause of action in 2016 is concerned merely because a cause of action of the year 2016 is mentioned, it would not take suit out of limitation, especially when cause of action in the year 2021 is also stated in paragraph Nos.11 as indicated above. Therefore it cannot be said that there is no cause of

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

Husen

¶27

50 CRA-161-2025 C.doc

¶28

action at all, to reject the plaint. Further, the argument that mere threat by the Defendant does not constitute any cause of action, is without merit in my opinion. Threat is part of bundle of facts that constitutes a cause of action and therefore overall pleadings of the plaint must be taken in account.

¶29

Viewed in light what is stated above, the impugned order shows that that learned Trial Court has considered the averments made in the plaint and has taken an overall view of the matter and the motion is dismissed. I do not find any perversity or apparent error in the impugned order. There is also no jurisdictional error involved. In that view of the matter, considering the limited jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, no interference is called for.

¶30

Civil Revision Application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.

¶31

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶32

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶33

Page 4 of 4

¶34

Husen

Pushpita Veenesh Sinha v. Veenesh Chandrabhushan Sharan Priyadarshi (Sinha)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpita Veenesh Sinha v. Veenesh Chandrabhushan Sharan Priyadarshi (Sinha)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kunalsingh Lalsingh Bisen vs Bansiddh Maynale and Anr.

Kusum Charudatta Shriyan and Ors. vs Prabhas Arun Siddha and Anr.

Bhauso Bapurao Kadam vs Parshram Tukaram Jagdale

Khan Tanvir Ahmed Adam Khan Since Decd Throu. L.H and Anr. vs Shri.Harun Musa Menon (Since Decd) Thr. His Heirs and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Kisan Alias Krishna Savekar vs Vasant Ramchandra Savekarand Ors.

Shri. Vijay Kisan Alias Krishna Savekar vs Vasant Ramchandra Savekar Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors.