It may be true that in para-31 the plaintiff has not disclosed the exact date on which cause of action arose. He has merely stated that "the agreements have been entered into on 7.11.2014 and 21.11.2014, the works have been executed thereafter for which, the amount claimed in the suit has fallen due". However, he has not stated on which date the amount claimed in the suit became due. Admittedly, he has also not issued the demand notice for recovery of amount, nor given the bills as such. However, the fact remains that in para-20 of the plaint, as referred above, he has stated that invoices were forwarded to defendant No. 1 with summary sheet dated 18.4.2015 and only part of the amount was paid and balance remained unpaid. Hence, the plaint discloses even the date for occrual of cause of action. It has to be stated that pleadings are not to be construed too strictly, as the Court is not to adopt the technical approach. The law is well settled that pleadings are required to be construed liberally.
12. In this case also, if the pleadings are construed liberally, then the averments in plaint are sufficient to disclose that the cause of action arose when the invoices were raised by summary sheet dated 18.4.2015, however, entire amount raised in the invoices was not paid. Therefore, on reading of the plaint in its proper perspective, and in a meaningful manner, it has to be held that the plaint contains the facts constituting cause of action and the date when it arose.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Civil Revision Application No. 24 of 2016
Decided On: 01.07.2017
Varron Auto Kast Limited Vs. Ravi Ramesh Muthal and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.
Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 277
1. Legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 465/15 dated 2.3.2016 is the subject matter of this revision. By the said order, the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the present applicant under Order-VII Rule-11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, on the ground that it does not disclose the cause of action and when it arose.
2. The facts, which may be necessary for deciding this application are that,
Respondent No. 1 has filed the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 6,40,04,390.80 from the present applicant towards the electrification work done by him in pursuance of the agreement executed between the parties. In the said suit, he has also claimed relief of perpetual injunction. According to respondent No. 1, he has carried out work as per the agreement, he has also raised invoices. However, only part payment was made and the remaining payment was not made. Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit for recovery of payment.
3. On appearance, the appellant filed application for rejection of the plaint on the count that, as it does not disclose cause of action or when it arose, the plaint needs to be rejected in view of provisions under Order-VII Rule-11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. This application came to be resisted by respondent No. 1 contending inter-alia that all the necessary averments are made in the plaint, which clearly disclose not only completion and execution of the work, which the respondent-plaintiff had undertaken as per the agreement but the plaint also discloses the fact that invoices were raised for the payment; the date on which the invoices were made, is also stated in the plaint. Thus, it is submitted that as the facts constituting the cause of action are sufficiently mentioned in the plaint, the application for rejection of the plaint on that ground needs to be dismissed.
5. On this application, the trial Court heard learned counsel for both the parties and was pleased to reject the application holding that the cause of action is bundle of facts and those bundle of facts are sufficiently appearing in the plaint; the averments in the plaint also disclose as to when the cause of action arose and hence, there was no substance in the application. The trial Court was, therefore, pleased to reject the application.
6. While challenging this order of the trial Court, learned counsel for applicant submits that Order-VII Rule-1(e) of Code of Civil Procedure mandates that plaint should contain the particulars the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose. According to him, Order-VII Rule-11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure further mandates the Court that plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose the cause of action. He further submits that, whether the plaint discloses the cause of action or not, is to be decided on the bare reading of the averments made in the plaint. According to him, at the most, the averments made in the plaint in the present case may disclose the facts constituting the right to sue, but they do not disclose the cause of action or the date when the cause of action arose.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that para-31 of the plaint more than sufficiently discloses the cause of action. According to him, the plaint has to be read in its entirety to ascertain whether it discloses the cause of action and when it arose.
8. In the light of these rival submissions advanced before me by both the learned counsel for both the parties, the legal position is undisputed that the provisions of Order-VII Rule 1(e) C.P.C. mandate the disclosure of the cause of action and when it arose, whereas, Rule-11(a) of Order-VII C.P.C. further mandates that plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. Moreover, the legal position is further crystalised that, for deciding whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, the averments made in the plaint are to be the guiding factors and they have to be read in its entirety.
9. In this case, even the bare perusal of the plaint reveals that there are sufficient averments made in the plaint as to the dispute between the parties to the suit. As per the averments in the plaint, in pursuance of the agreement executed between appellant and respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 has carried out various work-items. In para-20 of the plaint, it is clearly stated that respondent No. 1 has forwarded the invoices to the present appellant about the work done by him and the amount due, along with the summary sheet on 18.4.2015 in which it was stated that value of the work done by him was Rs. 10,92,51,252/- and the amount which he has received was Rs. 5,33,01,217/-. It was further stated therein that sum of Rs. 5,40,04,390/- is yet due from the appellant. Respondent No. 1 has in paragraph-21 has, further stated that he has discharged his contractual obligation by completing the work under the first agreement, except charging the supply line, likewise he has also done major work under the second agreement, however, installation of work is stalled as the appellant-defendant No. 1.
10. Thus, there are sufficient averments in the plaint as to why respondent No. 1 plaintiff was constrained to approach the Court for the purpose of recovery of amount. Reading of the plaint in its entirety definitely discloses the particulars of the facts, which constitute the cause of action.
11. It may be true that in para-31 the plaintiff has not disclosed the exact date on which cause of action arose. He has merely stated that "the agreements have been entered into on 7.11.2014 and 21.11.2014, the works have been executed thereafter for which, the amount claimed in the suit has fallen due". However, he has not stated on which date the amount claimed in the suit became due. Admittedly, he has also not issued the demand notice for recovery of amount, nor given the bills as such. However, the fact remains that in para-20 of the plaint, as referred above, he has stated that invoices were forwarded to defendant No. 1 with summary sheet dated 18.4.2015 and only part of the amount was paid and balance remained unpaid. Hence, the plaint discloses even the date for occrual of cause of action. It has to be stated that pleadings are not to be construed too strictly, as the Court is not to adopt the technical approach. The law is well settled that pleadings are required to be construed liberally.
12. In this case also, if the pleadings are construed liberally, then the averments in plaint are sufficient to disclose that the cause of action arose when the invoices were raised by summary sheet dated 18.4.2015, however, entire amount raised in the invoices was not paid. Therefore, on reading of the plaint in its proper perspective, and in a meaningful manner, it has to be held that the plaint contains the facts constituting cause of action and the date when it arose.
13. The application under Order-VII Rule-11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint was therefore, rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
The impugned order passed by trial Court being just, legal and correct, no interference is warranted therein. The Revision, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment