2021 (6) TMI 1151 - HC - Indian Laws

Plaintiff's Appeal Allowed, Suit Proceeds Against Defendants 4-6

The court allowed the appeal and held that a plaint could be rejected against some defendants. It found that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of ... Rejection of plaint against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 for want of a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure - It is contended that the Plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay the balance consideration, however, the Vendors refused to perform their part of the contract - HELD THAT:- The earlier decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ [2012 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT] needs to be followed which has laid down that the plaint as a whole can be rejected against some of the defendants. The Learned Single Judge was therefore correct in holding that there is no legal embargo on rejecting the plaint as a whole against some of the defendants. Whether the plaint does not disclose cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 warranting rejection against them, in terms of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code? - HELD THAT:- What amounts to ‘cause of action’ is well settled by the Supreme Court in its various decisions. In this regard, we refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. vs. A. P. Agencies [1989 (3) TMI 370 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the meaning of the expression “cause of action” is explained where it was held that Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. The Plaint discloses sufficient cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6. The pleadings are not a mere illusion of a cause of action. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have a right to sue Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 - Whether Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 can be held liable to pay damages will depend on the merits of the case. However, a bare reading of the Plaint conveys that damages are also claimed from Defendants Nos. 4 to 6, which is relevant. Under the scheme of Order II Rule 2 of the Code, it is necessary that parties must claim all the reliefs as available to them at the time of filing of the suit. Any intentional omission debars a second suit on the same cause of action. A plaintiff is not required to file a separate suit for other reliefs, where the other reliefs flow from the same cause of action. The relief of specific performance and the alternative claim of refund of earnest amount emanate from the same cause of action, and therefore a second suit for recovery of money may be untenable if filed by the Plaintiffs against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Thus, a plaint can be rejected as a whole against some of the defendants - the Plaint in the present Suit discloses sufficient cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in context of the Plaintiff’s alternate claim for refund of earnest amount - Notice of motion dismissed - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether a plaint can be rejected against some of the Defendants.2. Whether the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6, thereby warranting rejection against them in terms of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether a plaint can be rejected against some of the Defendants:The plaintiffs argued that the plaint cannot be rejected against some of the defendants and must be rejected as a whole. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in *Madhav Prasad Aggrawal vs. Axis Bank Limited* (2019) 7 SCC 158, which held that the plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The defendants countered by citing the Supreme Court decision in *Church of Christ Charitable Trust vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust* (2012) 8 SCC 706, which allowed for the rejection of a plaint against some defendants. The court noted that the decision in *Church of Christ* was earlier in time and thus should prevail, following the principle established in *Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra* (2014) 16 SCC 623. Consequently, the court held that the plaint could be rejected against some of the defendants.2. Whether the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6, thereby warranting rejection against them in terms of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code:The plaintiffs contended that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6, as they had paid a substantial amount directly to these defendants at the request of the vendors (Defendant Nos. 1 to 3). The court examined the plaint to determine whether it disclosed a cause of action. It referred to the Supreme Court’s guidance in *Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner* (2004) 3 SCC 137, which emphasized that the averments in the plaint are germane for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(a).The court found that the plaint contained specific pleadings that the plaintiffs paid Rs. 13,10,000/- directly to Defendant No. 4, pursuant to the Agreement to Sell, to enable them to acquire alternate accommodation. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had claimed an alternate relief for the refund of this amount, which was sufficient to disclose a cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6.The court rejected the defendants' argument that the suit was essentially for the recovery of possession against tenants, which should be filed in the Court of Small Causes as per Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The court clarified that the suit was for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell, with an alternate claim for the refund of the earnest amount paid to Defendant Nos. 4 to 6.The court concluded that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6, and the Learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) for want of a cause of action. The court set aside the Impugned Order dated 14.01.2019 and dismissed the Notice of Motion No. 2515/16.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the court held that a plaint could be rejected as a whole against some of the defendants. It further held that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6, particularly concerning the plaintiffs' alternate claim for the refund of the earnest amount. The Notice of Motion was dismissed, and the suit was allowed to continue against Defendant Nos. 4 to 6.