The High Court of Kerala disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the principal Munsiff's order rejecting an application to dismiss a suit for money recovery due to alleged lack of cause of action.
The revision petition was dismissed; no 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940
CRP.No. 42 of 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2016 IN IA NO.1458/2016 IN OS 322/2015 of THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM
DATED 08-12-2016
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
ANIL KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, AISWARYA,VAZHICHAL EAST, KORATTY VILLAGE, KORATTY PO.,THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA.PIN-680308
BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
M/S. FLOMIC FREIGHT SERVICES LTD 101/102, SPAN LAND MARK, 145 ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI 400093, THROUGH ITS COCHIN BRANCH, M/S. FLOMIC FREIGHT SERVICES, LTD.8A, BAB TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ATLANTIS, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTE DBY ITS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, MRS. RANCY ABROA
BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SMT.LINDA.M.J. SRI.M.A.BABY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP 42/2017
2
O R D E R
Against the order dated 8.12.2016 in
I.A.No.1458/2016 in O.S.No.322/2015 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, the defendant/petitioner came up with this petition.
2. The above said application was filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. stating that the plaint pleadings will not reveal or constitute a cause of action, which was dismissed by the learned Munsiff under the impugned order dated 8.12.2016 against which this revision petition was filed.
3. The suit is one for recovery of money alleged to have been misappropriated by the defendant while he was employed as a Branch Manager of the plaintiff concern/firm. The allegation of misappropriation well pleaded in the plaint. Now the present application was submitted by the defendant stating that the plaint averment will not constitute any cause of action for the suit.
4. The expression “cause of action” stands for
bundle of facts and in a civil suit it should be
CRP 42/2017
3
understood in reference to what is stated in Section
9 of the C.P.C. which enables the civil court to adjudicate any civil dispute unless the same expressly or impliedly barred under the provisions of law. So, the expression “cause of action” should be understood and appreciated as the facts constituting an action/civil remedy through a civil court. It is not at all necessary to plead and place different dates of action or misappropriation, though the dates
are relevant in bringing the suit and assessment/calculation of period of limitation, that it does not itself mean that cause of action confined only to various dates. It really stands for the entire facts in dispute as disclosed in the plaint.
Hence, the revision fails. Dismissed. No costs.
SD/-
P.SOMARAJAN
Kav/
JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint averments regarding alleged misappropriation by a former employee constitute a valid cause of action for a civil suit despite the defendant's opposition.
Whether the requirement to plead specific dates of misappropriation negates the existence of a cause of action.
Whether the Munsiff's dismissal of the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was right.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
ANIL KUMAR
M/S. FLOMIC FREIGHT SERVICES LTD
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
