Disposed

Mahima Das and Ors. v. M/S Madhu Food Products and Anr.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2020CRP(I/O)/6/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a revision petition regarding the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court, without deciding the merits, granted the petitioner leave to frame a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the subsequent money suit.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to the petitioner to approach the trial court with a prayer to decide the question of maintainability of the suit by framing a preliminary issue.

Mahima Das and Ors. Vs M/S Madhu Food… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010315472019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 6/2020

¶5

1:MAHIMA DAS AND ORS

¶6

W/O LT. NAREN DAS, PERMANENT R/O LAKHARA SENMELA, HOUSE NO. 55, P.O. SAWKUCHI, P.S. GARCHUK, PIN-781040, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

2: HEMANTA DAS S/O LT. NAREN DAS PERMANENT R/O LAKHARA SENMELA HOUSE NO. 55 P.O. SAWKUCHI P.S. GARCHUK PIN-781040 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶8

3: DEBA DAS S/O LT. NAREN DAS PERMANENT R/O LAKHARA SENMELA HOUSE NO. 55 P.O. SAWKUCHI P.S. GARCHUK PIN-781040 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶9

4: HEMEN DAS S/O LT. NAREN DAS PERMANENT R/O LAKHARA SENMELA HOUSE NO. 55 P.O. SAWKUCHI P.S. GARCHUK PIN-781040

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶12

5: DIGANTA DAS S/O LT. NAREN DAS PERMANENT R/O LAKHARA SENMELA HOUSE NO. 55 P.O. SAWKUCHI P.S. GARCHUK PIN-781040 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

1:M/S MADHU FOOD PRODUCTS AND ANR

¶15

BETKUCHI, LOKHRA NEAR BETKUCHI L.P. SCHOOL, P.O. SAUKUCHI, GUWAHATI-781034, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI CHIRANJIT PATHAK, S/O SRI HAMENDRA NATH PATHAK, R/O BETKUCHI, LOKHRA NEAR BETKUCHI L.P. SCHOOL , P.O. SAUKUCHI PIN-781034, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶16

2:HEMENDRA NATH PATHAK S/O BETKUCHI LOKHRA NEAR BETKUCHI LP SCHOOL P.O. SAUKUCHI PIN-781034 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BORAH

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : MR B M DEKA

¶19

Page No.# 3/4

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 08-06-2020

¶23

Heard Mr. B. Borah learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

By the order dated 09.11.2018 passed in Misc J. Case No. 494/2017 arising out of Money suit No. 38/2017, the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M) Guwahati had rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint. Hence, this revision petition.

¶25

According to the petitioner, the subsequent suit being M.S. No. 38/2017 is barred under Order II Rule 2 (3) CPC since the plaintiffs had deliberately failed to seek all the reliefs in respect of the same cause of action involved in Title Suit No. 81/2017.

¶26

Mr. Deka has, however, strongly refuted the said submission and contends that the cause of action in both the suite are different although the facts, on the face of the records, would appear to be connected.

¶27

After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that the issue raised by the petitioner would require a detail factual enquiry, which would be possible in a revision petition.

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

At this stage, Mr. Borah has prayed for leave of this Court to withdraw this revision petition with liberty to pray for deciding the question of maintainability of Money suit No. 38/2017 by framing a preliminary issue.

¶30

Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he would have no objection if the leave, as prayed for by the petitioner’s counsel, is granted by this Court.

¶31

In view of the above, without making any observation on the merit of the plea raised by the parties, I disposed of this revision petition by granting leave to the petitioner to approach the learned trial Court with a prayer to decide the question of maintainability of the suit by framing preliminary issue.

¶32

With the above observations, revision petition stands closed.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Mahima Das and Ors. v. M/S Madhu Food Products and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahima Das and Ors. v. M/S Madhu Food Products and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Gopal Karmakar Vs Janardhan Saha and 7 Ors.

Bhupen Gogoi and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

M/S. Asian Bulls Construction and Developers Ltd. Vs Nijara Dewriary @ Archana Brahma Dewriary and 7 Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mst. Chand Sultana Mazumder and 5 Ors.

Gopal Ch. Das Vs Suman Bhowmick and 3 Ors.

M/S. Madhus Food Products and Anr. Vs Mahima Das and 4 Ors.