THOMAS RAJAN Vs. VENKATARAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the respondent's suit for declaration and consequential reliefs, an application I.A. No. 4 was filed by the petitioners-defendants 2 and 3 under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (b) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying to direct the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee on the suit and for reliefs claimed therein as per law. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) Sri Puttige R. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He contends that the reasoning given by the Trial Court that since the very defendant had filed a suit and by placing reliance on the documents and some Court fee has been paid in the present suit, the application is rejected. The reasoning adopted by the Trial Court is erroneous and interference is called for.

(3.) Sri K. Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 contends that an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (b) is not maintainable. Rule 11(a) is with regard to cause of action in the suit and Rule 11(b) is with regard to the adequacy of Court fee. Hence, the application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (b) is not at all maintainable.