(2015) 120 CutLT 161 : (2015) 1 OriLawRev 960
ORISSA HIGH COURT
SINGLE BENCH
( Before : C.R. Dash, J. )
MR. GLEN RODRIGUES — Appellant
Vs.
ADHUNIK METALS LTD. — Respondent
CRP No. 32 of 2013
Decided on : 12-11-2014
Cases Referred
• Church of Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society
Vs. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust, AIR 2012 SC 3912 :
(2012) 2 OLR SC 501
Counsel for Appearing Parties
M/s. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, H.B. Dash and C.R. Das, Advocates, for
the Petitioner; M/s. B.P. Tripathy, R. Acharya and T. Barikm,
Advocates, for the Opposite Party
JUDGMENT
C.R. Dash, J. - The Petitioner, who is Defendant before the
Court below, has filed the present CRP challenging the Order
Dated 29.06.2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Rourkela in C.S. No.387 of 2010 rejecting the
petition filed by the Petitioner under Order 7, Rule-11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The Petitioner being the Defendant, entered his appearance
in the suit & filed written statement, inter alia, on the ground
that there is no cause of action or any basis for institution of the
suit & there was no contract between the Plaintiff & Defendant.
The Petitioner thereafter, filed a petition under Order-7, Rule-
11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is
absolutely no cause of action to file the suit against the
Petitioner & there is no privity of contract between the parties.
The present Opposite Party, who is the Plaintiff before the
lower Court, filed objection to the aforesaid petition.
3. The Learned Court below, after hearing Learned Counsel
for the parties, rejected the petition filed by the present
Petitioner holding that, there is sufficient ground to file the suit
& there is ample cause of action & the petition filed on behalf of
the Defendant deserves to be dismissed & the petition stands
dismissed being devoid of any merit.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the case of
Church of Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable
Society v. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust, AIR
2012 SC 3912 : 2012 (2) OLR (SC) 501 to substantiate his
contention that the suit cannot proceed either for specific
performance or for recovery of money, as no cause of action has
been mentioned in the plaint.
5. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party, on the other hand,
supports the impugned order & submits that the plaint filed as
Annexure-1 to the revision petition discloses the cause of action
so far as the lis against the Petitioner is concerned.
6. It is well settled in law that, while considering a petition
under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC, only plaint is to be seen & not the
defence & it is further settled in law that the cause of action is a
bundle of facts, which are required to be pleaded & proved for
the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. These points
of law are so well settled that no citation is necessary to
elaborate the same for the sake of brevity.
7. Perusal of the plaint shows that paragraphs-4 to 16 of the
plaint discloses various facts, basing on which the relief in the
suit have been claimed & I do not find any justification to
interfere with the finding of the Learned Court below to the
effect that there is ample cause of action unfolded in the plaint.
So far as defence of the Petitioner regarding absence of privity
of contract etc. & non-existence of any agreement etc. are
concerned, those cannot be gone into at this stage. There being
sufficient cause of action in the plaint, the impugned order
needs no interference.
8. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed.
Final Result : Dismissed
