9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter for trial and by no stretch of imagination, the same can be considered as grounds for rejection of plaint. As regards the contention of the defendants that though the sale agreement was entered into between the parties with respect to one item of the property, the plaintiff has filed the suit with respect to five items of properties and as such, he has no cause of action. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the defendants, in the suit sale agreement, parties have mentioned one item of suit property. But in the plaint, the plaintiff has listed out five items of properties running four pages. As already pointed out, the defendants have filed an elaborate written statement running to 27 pages, but it is settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int can very well be rejected by the Court, if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The cause of action has been mentioned in various places in C.P.C. Without a cause of action, a civil suit cannot arise. The cause of action is necessary because it discloses the facts that led the plaintiffs to take such action. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned trial Judge, without considering the plaint pleadings and the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., in proper perspective, has rejected the plaint mechanically. Hence, this Court concludes that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the trial Court is to be directed to proceed with the trial. Since the suit was filed in the year 2013, this Court is of the fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grounds raised by the appellant/plaintiff in the appeal memorandum, the point that arise for consideration is as to whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint, despite showing that the property shown in the sale agreement and the properties listed out in the plaint are one and the same or different, is a matter for trial. 4. Admittedly, the first defendant is the mother of the defendants 2 to 5 and the sixth defendant is the sister of the first defendant's husband. It is not in dispute that the defendants 1 to 5 have entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the property shown in the sale agreement and that both the parties have fixed the sale price at Rs. 1,00,000/- for one Kuzhi (144 sqft) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the learned trial Judge himself has given a finding against the defendants with respect to the limitation plea. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the points 2 and 4 are matter for trial and by no stretch of imagination, the same can be considered as grounds for rejection of plaint. 7. Now turning to the contention of the defendants that though the sale agreement was entered into between the parties with respect to one item of the property, the plaintiff has filed the suit with respect to five items of properties and as such, he has no cause of action. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the defendants, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows: 9. Considering the above, it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the property agreed to be sold by the defendants 1 to 5 and the properties shown in the plaint are one and the same. But it is the specific defence of the defendants that the properties are not one and the same and the plaintiff has included some other properties which are not belonging to the defendants 1 to 5. As already pointed out, the defence pleaded in the written statement cannot be considered at this point of time. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, whether the property shown in the suit sale agreement and the present suit properties are one and the same or different properties can be gone into only at the trial. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, just because some of the properties are different, the same cannot be considered as a ground of want of cause of action. In the case on hand, the learned trial Judge has nowhere observed that the impugned plaint does not disclose any cause of action, but on the other hand, he has observed that the cause of action was not proper. No doubt, the trial Judge has given a finding that there was no honesty in the action and conduct of the plaintiff. Even assuming that the finding given by the trial Court is correct, that cannot be considered as a reason or ground for rejecting the plaint. Moreover, the trial Court has not assigned any valid reason to arrive at the said finding 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
