Dismissed

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Rajat Malhotral and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2012CR/7259/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a civil revision filed by a defendant challenging the dismissal of an application to reject the plaint. The High Court held that the plaint did not attract ad valorem court fee as no recovery of possession was sought and that issues regarding cause of action and res judicata must be decided during the trial after evidence is led.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. No costs.

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No.7259 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.7259 of 2012(O&M)

¶5

DATE OF DECISION : December 05, 2012

¶6

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Rajat Malhotra and others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL

¶10

Present:- Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

M.JEYAPAUL, J.

¶12

The 1^st defendant aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by it along with defendants no.3 and 4 to reject the plaint has come forward with the present Revision.

¶13

It has been contended by the Revision petitioner that the plaintiff did not disclose cause of action, that the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata, and that the suit was not properly valued and ad valorem Court fee was not paid.

¶14

The trial Court having adverted to the plaint pleadings held that in as much as no prayer for recovery of possession was sought for by the plaintiff and that there was a specific contention in

¶15

Civil Revision No.7259 of 2012(O&M)

¶16

¶17

the plaint that the plaintiff also was in possession of the suit property held that the plaint did not attract payment of ad valorem Court fee. As regards the other two pleas made by the Revision petitioner, the trial Court observed that the application of principle of resjudicata and the allegation of non disclosure of cause of action will have to be decided only after giving liberty to both parties to lead evidence.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would submit that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff ignoring the verdict passed by the Delhi High Court with respect to the suit property. It is his further submission that in as much as the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, the prayer for cancellation of the sale deed would attract ad valorem Court fee. He would also submit that no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint.

¶19

I find that there is no merit in the Revision filed by the 1^st defendant. The plaintiff has categorically contended in the plaint that he has also been in the possession of the suit property. Never had he sought for delivery of possession in the suit filed by him. He was also not one of the executants of the sale deed sought to be avoided and nullified. Under such circumstances no direction can be issued to the plaintiff to pay Court fee on ad valorem basis.

¶20

In paragraph 7 of the plaint it has been categorically averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff came to know of the existence of the sale deed and lease deed only a fortnight ago and, therefore, he had to file a suit after giving notice to the defendants prior to the suit. Whether such a cause of action disclosed in the plaint really existed or not will have to be gone into by the trial Court only during

¶21

Civil Revision No.7259 of 2012(O&M)

¶22

¶23

the course of trial after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. In the above circumstances, I find that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that there is no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint.

¶24

As regards the application of the principle of resjudicata, in my considered view, the scope of the writ petition filed by the 5^th defendant is different from the scope of the suit filed by the plaintiff herein praying to avoid the sale deed and also the lease deed which are the subject matter of the suit. Further, such a larger issue will have to be determined by the trial Court after both the parties let in evidence.

¶25

The 1^st defendant has not only filed petition under Order 7 Rule 11 before the trial Court without any valid ground but also has chosen to file a Revision Petition before this Court in order to drag the plaintiff to the High Court.

¶26

Therefore, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶27

(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE

¶28

December 05, 2012 p.singh

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Rajat Malhotral and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Rajat Malhotral and Ors.

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

Gajjan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sham Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajiv Kumar etc. Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Pb. Chd. & Ors.

Bhavna Gulati etc. Vs Maharishi Dayanand University Rohtak etc.

Varuna Kumari and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satender @ Mintu Vs State of Haryana