BUDDAPPA Vs. L R RENU BAPTIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS appeal coming on for admission, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaint has been rejected on an application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 -(a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC', for brevity). The court below has rejected the plaint on all the three counts. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that from a reading of the order rejecting the plaint, it is evident that the court has drawn several conclusions and has proceeded on several presumptions, all of which was not possible only from a plain reading of the plaint. The order would further disclose that the court below has addressed documents produced by the defendant and it is also to be concluded that the court below was influenced by the pleadings by way of written statement and the arguments put forth by the counsel for the defendants on the basis of the written statement and the very documents produced.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would seek to point out that a plain reading of the plaint would indeed disclose that it is ridden with contradictions, there is no basis for several averments that are made and it is evident that the contention that the defendants were in possession and that they could not claim possession adverse to the plaintiffs while also in the same breath declaring that they are co -owners in possession, could not be reconciled and it is on these infirmities and apparent lack of cogency that the court below has rejected the plaint and it cannot be said that the court has been influenced by the material other than a plain reading of the plaint. The tenor of the order is evidently focused on the averments in the plaint and the incidental reference to the documents produced by the defendant or any other observations made even if eschewed, would result in the plaint having been rejected on the basis of the plaint averments. This the learned counsel seeks to demonstrate from a reading of the order and the averments in the plaint.