Allowed

Lalit Kumar Jaju v. the Executive Officer

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CMA/808/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal, holding that the trial court erred in returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for alleged lack of cause of action and fear of multiplicity of suits. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 is quashed and set aside; the learned trial court is directed to proceed with registration of the suit; stay petitions and pending applicatio

Lalit Kumar Jaju Vs the Executive Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6520]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 808/2022

¶4

Lalit Kumar Jaju S/o Shri Natwarlal Jaju, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Guruji Ki Gali, Deedwana, Distt. Nagaur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Deedwana, Distt. Nagaur.

¶8

The Chairman, Municipal Board, Deedwana, Distt. Nagaur. 3. The Deputy Chairman, Municipal Board, Deedwana, Distt. Nagaur,

¶9

Gajendra S/o Rudmal Singh, B/c Jaat, Thekedar Nagar Palika Mandal R/o Parmanand Colony, Ward No. 40, Ladnun Road, Deedwana, Nagaur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Bhaiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Chahar for respondent No.4

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

08/02/2024

¶15

The present appeal has been preferred against the order impugned dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Deedwana whereby the plaint as preferred by the plaintiff has been returned on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action.

¶16

2 Despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Learned counsel Mr. B.R. Chahar appears for respondent No.4.

¶17

The suit in question was preferred by the plaintiff for compensation/damages jointly against the Municipal Officers and the contractor to whom the contract for installation of speed

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:6520]

[CMA-808/2022]

breakers was awarded by the Municipal Board, Deedwana. The said suit has been preferred with the pleadings that the speed breakers have been installed by the contractor in contravention to the conditions and guidelines as prescribed, which caused physical inconvenience as well as regular medical problems/complaints to the plaintiff and ultimately resulted in his continuous treatments and operations. The suit has been preferred claiming the said medical expenses as well as the amount qua the losses incurred due to the negligence of the defendants in performance of their duties.

¶22

Learned trial Court observed that the plaint as filed did not disclose any cause of action and further that, if the said suit is permitted to be registered, the same would lead in multiplicity of similar suits and litigation and hence the same cannot be entertained. Learned trial Court, therefore, returned the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 10, CPC to the plaintiff.

¶23

Heard the counsels.

¶24

Order VII Rule 10, CPC provides as under:

¶25

“10. Return of plaint.—(1) [Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall] at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.

¶26

[Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.]

¶27

(2) Procedure on returning plaint. —On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. ”

¶28

The Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Bank of

¶29

Rajasthan Ltd. vs. VCK Shares and Stock Broking Services

¶30

Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 1 held as under:

[2024:RJ-JD:6520]

[CMA-808/2022]

(3 of 4)

“A plaint can be returned only under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code for the reasons specified therein. In the absence of such reasons, Section 151 of the Code cannot be utilised as a residuary power to achieve the transfer, which is really a consequence of return of the plaint when the grounds Under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code are not satisfied.”

¶35

In view of the clear statutory provision and the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that a plaint can be returned on the ground of jurisdiction only and not otherwise and therefore, the learned trial Court erred in returning the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action and if the said suit is entertained, the same would lead in multiplicity of litigation

¶36

Further, in the specific opinion of this Court, the said approach of the learned trial Court cannot be affirmed as even though a suit is preferred for reliefs which a plaintiff might fail to prove, that cannot be a ground to reject the suit at its inception without deciding it on merits and on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action. This Court is of the view that there was definitely a cause of action pleaded in the plaint as a suit on basis of the negligence/inaction on the part of the Government Authorities, can definitely be laid. To be specific, as provided under the law of Tort, a suit for compensation on the ground of negligence/inaction on part of the Government Authorities, cannot be said to be having no cause of action. The same, even if not found to be a plausible one finally, cannot lead to a presumption at the inception itself that the suit would only be dismissed.

¶37

Further, rejection/return of the plaint on the mere apprehension that the same would lead to number of similar suits being filed, cannot be a logical reason so as to return the paint.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:6520]

[CMA-808/2022]

Hence, the order impugned dated 04.05.2022 deserves to be and is hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶42

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the registration of the suit in accordance with law. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶43

Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of .

¶44

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶45

285-Vij/-

Lalit Kumar Jaju v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar Jaju v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Devi Vs Chunni Lal and Ors.

Savitri Devi Vs United India Insurance Company Limited

U.I.T., Bhilwara Vs Mandir Shree Charbhuja Trust, Bhilwara

R.S.M.D.C.Ltd. Vs Kamla and Ors.

Rameshwari Vs Muzmil Choudhary

M/S Dayasheel Distributors Vs Rajiv Dixit Memorial Trust