The High Court disposed of a revisional application challenging the rejection of a complaint for dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC due to lack of cause of action. The court found the order was not perverse and dismissed the application without costs.
Revisional application dismissed; interim stay vacated; no order as to costs.
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.
25 13.7.2023 Ct. No. 236 SB
C.O. 2446 of 2014
CAN 1 of 2014 (not in file)
In the matter of : Krishna Kumar Kayan
Earlier on 07.6.2023 and 15.6.2023 matter was adjourned suo moto in absence of learned counsel representing the petitioners.
In view of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court given
in the case of Robin Thapa vs. Rohit Dora reported in AIR 2019 SCC 3225 held that ;
“8. Ordinarily, a litigation is based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties. Litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be done on merits .”
Under such circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of
the application on merit.
This revisional application challenges the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by learned Judge, XIIth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 745 of 2012. By the impugned order learned Trial Court was pleased to reject the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant on the ground that the suit so filed does not disclosed any cause of action.
Upon perusal of the materials on record as well as impugned order, I do not find any substance in the averment so made by the defendant / petitioner before the learned Trial Court Paragraph 12 of the plaint is eloquent enough about the cause of
2
action. The order impugned can neither said to be perverse nor there is any jurisdictional error.
The revisional application is bereft of merit and is dismissed along with application being CAN 1 of 2014 however, without any order as to costs.
Interim order of stay, if any, stands vacated.
Let a copy of the order be sent to the learned Trial Court
for information and necessary action.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for dismissal of complaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC under the ground of no cause of action is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error.
Whether there was any cause of action disclosed in the plaint under Paragraph 12.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Robin Thapa vs. Rohit DoraReferred¶7
AIR 2019 SCC 3225 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna Kumar Kayan
Defendant
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
