Dismissed¶9

Manu Bittar Garai Alias Jhuma Bitter Garai v. Subhendu Garai

Calcutta HC5 Aug 2024CO/708/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 Constitution civil revision; C.O. 708 of 2024; High Court Calcutta; Biswajit Basu judge; Order VII Rule 11 CPC plaint rejection dismissed; cause of action disclosed by first learning of wife-claim on police summons visit 10.01.2022; declaration suit that no marriage solemnized 07.03.2020 Layekpur Kali Temple Hindu rites; Title Suit No. 13 of 2022, 2nd Court CJ(JD) Bolpur Birbhum; maintainability issue to be framed notwithstanding plaint-rejection dismissal; revision dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The fact pleaded in the plaint — that on January 10, 2022, when the police came to serve summons of a criminal case initiated by the petitioner, the plaintiff first learnt that the defendant was claiming to be his legally married wife — clearly discloses the cause of action for the suit. ¶8

Manu Bittar Garai Alias Jhuma Bitter Garai Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in Title Suit No. 13 of 2022 discloses no cause of action, warranting rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. +2 more

¶4

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The order impugned (dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 plaint-rejection application) does not call for any interference.

¶9

Key takeaways

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 application, the trial judge is directed to frame an issue in the suit regarding its maintainability, so that the maintainability question remains open for examination at the trial stage.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction), C.O. 708 of 2024, decided 05.08.2024 by Biswajit Basu, J.: Civil revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution by Manu Bittar Garai @ Jhuma Bitter Garai, the defendant in a suit for declaration (Title Suit No. 13 of 2022, 2nd Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bolpur, Birbhum), directed against Order No. 16 dated August 31, 2023, whereby the trial judge dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the plea that it disclosed no cause of action. The plaint, laid by respondent Subhendu Garai, seeks a declaration that on March 07, 2020 no marriage was solemnized between him and the defendant at the Layekpur Kali Temple according to Hindu rites and customs; the plaintiff alleges that on January 10, 2022, when the police came to his house to serve summons of a criminal case initiated by the petitioner, he for the first time learnt that the defendant claimed to be his legally married wife. Held: that fact clearly discloses the cause of action to file the suit; the order impugned does not call for any interference; C.O. 708 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs. Consequential direction retained: notwithstanding dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 application, the trial judge shall frame an issue in the suit regarding its maintainability.

¶1

05.08.2024 (M/L-09) Ct.-19 (Susanta) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶2

C.O. 708 of 2024

¶3

Manu Bittar Garai @ Jhuma Bitter Garai -VsSubhendu Garai Mr. Mrinal Kani Ghosh, … For the Petitioner. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for declaration, and is directed against the Order No. 16 dated August 31, 2023 passed by the 2^nd Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Bolpur, District: Birbhum, in the said suit being Title Suit No. 13 of 2022 .

¶4

The learned Trial judge by the order impugned has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint of the said suit on the ground that it discloses no cause of action.

¶5

The plaintiff is praying a declaration that on March 07, 2020 no marriage was solemnized between him and the defendant at the Layekpur Kali Temple according to Hindu rites and customs.

¶6

The plaintiff is alleging that on January 10, 2022, when the police came to his house for effecting service of summons of a criminal case initiated by the petitioner, he for the first time came to learn that the defendant is claiming to be his legally married wife, and has filed the connected suit.

¶7

¶8

The said fact clearly discloses the cause of action to file the said suit.

¶9

The order impugned therefore, does not call for any interference. C.O. 708 of 2024 is thus dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶10

Notwithstanding the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the leaner Trial Judge shall frame an issue in the suit regarding maintainability of it.

¶11

Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶12

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶13

(Biswajit Basu, J.)

Manu Bittar Garai Alias Jhuma Bitter Garai v. Subhendu Garai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu Bittar Garai Alias Jhuma Bitter Garai v. Subhendu Garai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Kumar Saha Vs Mira Rani Saha

Liaqat Ali Vs Tarique Aziz

Murli Dhar Dhyawala Vs the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and Ors.

Ajimunnesa @ Ajimunnessa Bibi and Others Vs Abdul Asraf @ Chandan and Others

Alo Rani Pal Vs Gopa Mukherjee Banerjee and Ors.

Shambhu Nath Bhattacharya Vs Gobinda Bhattacharya and Ors.