Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1982 (8) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written 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; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the question as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not for the purposes of Clause (a) of Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. should be decided on the face of the averments made in the plaint. On the other hand the argument of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner is that not only the pl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lication before the Court only after giving the working trustees an opportunity of being heard and as it did not appear from the face of the application as well as from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan that any such opportunity was given to the opposite party of being heard, the permission given by the Assistant Commissioner to Bhagwandas by his order dated 24-11-1981 was invalid or void and no application could be maintained by Bhagwandas before the learned District Judge, on the basis of such an invalid permission given by the Assistant Commissioner. 4. Now, what the learned counsel for the opposite party urges is that while looking into the averments made in the plaint, for the purpose of determining the question whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of action. What the learned counsel urges is that there was no cause of action for filing the suit, as the permission given by the Assistant Commissioner, which is a condition precedent to the filing of an application under Section 38 before the learned District Judge, was invalid or void. But what Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. postulates is that at the preliminary stage the Court is only to see from the averments made in the plaint as to whether, on the face of such averments, a cause of action is disclosed or not. As the question which has been raised by the learned counsel relates to the invalidity of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner it may raise a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact for determination. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peared to be barred by limitation and that the document, which was the basis of the suit and was filed along with it should also, be looked into. In that case, there was some difference between the English and the Tamil dates given in the plaint and it was held that in such circumstances it was open to the Court to rely upon the date given in the document, a pronote, which formed basis of the suit and was produced along with the plaint. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party may be right in urging that if the plaint is based on a document, then such a document may be considered as forming part of the plaint itself and the document can also be looked into, while considering the averments of the plaint, for the purpose of deciding the q .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11. C, P. C, taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And if clear (clever) drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C. P. C. 10. The observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case were made in the context that mere vexatious actions should not be entertained merely because of clever drafting of the plaint or merely because of camouflage. A person who has no claim whatsoever should not be allowed to harass the opposite parties by dragging them into a fruitl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates