Indu Chawla & Anr v. Bharat Chawala & Ors

1. This is an application on behalf of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for want of cause of action.

2. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,60,000/-, i.e., principal amount of Rs.32 lakhs along with pre-suit interest of Rs.3,60,000/- besides pendent lite and future interest. 2014:DHC:271

3. The defendant by the present application has contended that the Plaintiffs have miserably failed to file any written condition for refund of double amount of the amount paid by the Plaintiffs to the predecessor of the defendants. The defendant has submitted that there is no document to prove the claim of the Plaintiffs on record and the documents, i.e., bank certificates are irrelevant and inconsistent documents and the same are only for a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- and if the Plaintiffs were to succeed then the Plaintiffs can only prove a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- in which case the suit would be below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. He has contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and has sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

4. Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 190 8, lays down as under:

11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the Plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be 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; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the Plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the Plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the Plaintiff.

5. The relevant clause of order 7 rule 11 relied upon is clause (a). Plaint under Order 7 rule 11(a) is to be rejected where it does not disclose any cause of action.

6. The supreme court in BHAU RAM V. JANAK SINGH,

“15. The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be irrelevant. [vide C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai [(2007) 14 SCC 183], Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta [(2007) 10 SCC 59], Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and Co. [(2007) 5 SCC 614], Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [(2006) 3 SCC 100], Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137] and Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557] ]. The above view has been once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust *(2012) 8 SCC 706+.”

7. The law in respect of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is settled. It is only where on examination of the plaint the court comes to a conclusion that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, the same is liable to be rejected. While examining the case under Order 7 rule 11, if the court comes to a conclusion that the plaint discloses a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected. The defence raised by the defendant in his Written Statement is irrelevant and is not to be considered. The court at that stage is neither called upon to examine whether the Plaintiffs would be able to eventually prove their case or not nor examine as to how much of the case the Plaintiffs would be able to prove.

8. In the present case the Plaintiffs in the plaint has contended that Sh. Raj Kumar Chawla was the proprietor of Defendants No. 4 and 5 concerns and is the predecessor of defendants No.1 to 3. Defendant No.1 being the son, defendant No.2 being the wife and defendant No.3 being the daughter respectively of Sh. Raj Kumar Chawla. It is averred in the plaint that the said defendants have inherited all the assets/properties and liabilities including the business, after the death of Sh. Raj Kumar Chawla and the said businesses are now being run by the defendants 1 to

3.

9. The Plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that Sh. Raj Kumar Chawla was dealing in properties and for the purpose of investment, the Plaintiffs had given substantial amount of money to Sh. Raj Kumar Chawla towards consideration for selling and transferring the property in Rohini which was stated to be in the name of the daughter of Sh.Raj Kumar Chawla. It is averred in the plaint that a sum of Rs.17 lakhs had been paid by the Plaintiffs to Sh. Raj Kumar Chawla. The Plaintiffs have given the details of the cheques through which the payments were made. It is averred in the plaint that as Sh.Raj Kumar Chawla, did not execute the requisite transfer documents in favour of the Plaintiffs he agreed to refund the amount received from the Plaintiffs together with interest and damages and thus issued post dated cheques amounting to Rs.32 lakhs being double the amount paid by the Plaintiffs.

10. The Plaintiffs have given the details of the cheque, their particulars, dates and amounts totalling to Rs.32 lakhs in the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that on presentation of some of the cheques they were returned unpaid and legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued and from the report of the postal authorities on the said notice, the Plaintiffs came to know that Sh.Raj Kumar Chawla had expired. The Plaintiffs have averred that defendants No.1 to 3 have succeeded to the assets and properties left behind by Sh.Raj Kumar Chawla and as such are liable to pay the said amount. It is for recovery of the amount covered by the cheques for Rs.32 lakhs that the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit.