HEMALATHA M. Vs. D.N. ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) In this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of rejection on the application in I.A.No.5 filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. in O.S.No.18/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Pavagada.

(3.) The main contention urged in the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. before the Trial Court by the defendants is that there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is also barred by limitation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that, at the first instance, the plaintiff filed the memo stating that the very plaint itself is the statement of objection and later on, the Trial Court directed to file the statement of objection and the same is not the practice to consider the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. and the same was not warranted. The counsel also would vehemently contend that, in the agreement, the name is mentioned as Sri Francis Arun Kumar and he was working as Project Manager in D.N. Energy Private Limited having its registered office and represented by D.N. Energy Private Limited as a power of attorney holder. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the suit by D.N. Energy Private Limited. The counsel also would vehemently contend that in the agreement, which came into existence in the year 2015, time is the essence of contract and only three months time is fixed for execution of the agreement and balance sale consideration is payable at the time of registration and the suit is also barred by limitation since, suit is filed after 7 years before the Trial Court and the counsel mainly urge two grounds i.e., there is no cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation.