Dismissed

The Chennai Port Authority v. M/s.Parklane Consultants Ltd. and 5 others

Madras HC10 Oct 2023A/5217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint. The court rejected the ground of collusion, stating it is an evidentiary issue for the trial and citing requirements of the CPC for rejecting plaints.

What did the court decide?

Application to reject the plaint was dismissed; suit allowed to proceed.

The Chennai Port Authority Vs M/s.Parklane… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

A.No.5217 of 2022 in C.S.No.506 of 2018

¶2

A.No.5217 of 2023

¶3

¶4

C.S.No.506 of 2018

¶5

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶6

This application has been filed by the second and third defendant's to

¶7

reject the plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶8

The main ground on which the suit sought to be rejected is that there was collusion between the plaintiff and the first defendant and having received consideration, the document cannot be assailed. Hence, the plaint is sought to be rejected.

¶9

I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused materials. A perusal of the allegations found in the affidavit, this application cannot be entertained. The suit can be rejected only on the grounds set out in Order XI Rule 7 CPC, which reads as follows :

¶10

1/4

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

A.No.5217 of 2022 in C.S.No.506 of 2018

¶13

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

¶14

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the

¶15

plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶16

¶17

plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶18

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the

¶19

plaint to be barred by any law.

¶20

It is relevant to note that even clause b and c set out above will not

¶21

apply to the Chartered High Courts as per Order XLIX Rule 3 of CPC. In such view of the matter, the suit can be rejected only if there is no cause of action or the suit is barred by any law or it is not filed in duplicate and on failure to comply the Rule under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Merely on the basis of the allegation that there was collusion between the parties, the suit

¶22

2/4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

A.No.5217 of 2022 in C.S.No.506 of 2018

¶25

cannot be rejected. Whether or not, there is collusion, is a matter of evidence and it has to be decided only during the trial. Hence, I do not find any merits in this application.

¶26

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

22.11.2023

vrc

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

A.No.5217 of 2022 in C.S.No.506 of 2018

¶32

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶33

vrc

¶34

A.No.5217 of 2023 in

¶35

C.S.No.506 of 2018

¶36

22.11.2023

¶37

4/4

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Chennai Port Authority v. M/s.Parklane Consultants Ltd. and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chennai Port Authority v. M/s.Parklane Consultants Ltd. and 5 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

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs R.Selvaraj and another

Sri Sundara Vinayagar Vs U.Shankar and 11 others

G.Kannaiah Naidu @ Kannan Vs the Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd.

The Executor and Trustees Vs Sree Latha Radhakrishnan

A.Revathy Vs K.S.Krishnamurthy (Deceased) 1.K.S.Sreekanth and another

G.Saravanan (Deceased) 1.S.Rekha and another Vs Hema Ramanathan