Dismissed

Miss P.Kalavathi v. Sundar Bai and 3 Others

Madras HC15 Mar 2022A/496/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the applicant's prayer to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for failure to disclose cause of action. The Court held that averments in the plaint are sufficient and the dispute is a matter for trial.

What did the court decide?

Application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC dismissed; defendant directed to file written statement; suit listed.

Miss P.Kalavathi Vs Sundar Bai and 3 Others — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

A.No.496 of 2022 in C.S.No.355 of 2021

¶2

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

¶3

In the suit filed for specific performance and for permanent injunction, the applicant/defendant has filed this application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C seeking to reject the plaint in C.S.No.355 of 2021, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action.

¶4

2.The learned counsel for the applicant/defendant would submit that paragraph No.7 of the plaint itself shows that the plaintiffs have not shown any cause of action to file the suit. He would further submit that the parties to the contracts are different and that sale consideration was not paid to the vendor and the sale agreement itself is null and void. Further the plaintiffs have not acted as per the sale agreement and hence, the plaint is to be rejected.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

¶6

counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1/3

¶8

It is settled proposition of law that while deciding the application

¶9

under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Court has to see the averments in the plaint and not the defence taken by the defendants and the documents relied upon by the defendants. A careful reading of the averments in the plaint, this Court finds that the plaint itself discloses the cause of action and the points raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/defendant is a matter for trial and it can be decided only after recording the evidence and not at this stage. The applicant/defendant has not made out any ingredients for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶10

5.The learned counsel for the defendant is directed to file a written

¶11

statement in C.S.No.355 of 2021.

¶12

List C.S.No.355 of 2021 on 11.04.2022.

15.03.2022

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/3

¶17

¶18

A.No.496 of 2022 in C.S.No.355 of 2021

¶19

15.03.2022

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/3

Miss P.Kalavathi v. Sundar Bai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss P.Kalavathi v. Sundar Bai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhil Manohar Vs Revati Ram Manohar and 3 others

S.K.H.Sheik Mohammed Vs a.Muthu and 5 Others

E.Gopalakrishnamurthy and 2 others Vs D.Kaveri and 2 others

The Corporation Bank Vs Adhithya Energy Solution and 2 others

K.Sumathi and another Vs Nalini Hari and 3 others

Great Lakes Multi-State Coperative Housing society Ltd. Vs Mr.S.Ganesan and 3 Others