B MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA Vs. GURUMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are respectively defendants-1 and 2 in O. S. No. 127/07 have challenged the order dated 8-2-08 passed in the said case by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and C. J. M, chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Judge" for short) rejecting the application of these petitioners filed under Order 7, Rule ll (a) and (d), C. P. C. seeking rejection of plaint in the said case. Though this matter is listed for admission it is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned advocates for both the sides and their arguments are heard. All the documents produced by the respective parties to this revision petition and also the impugned order are perused.

(2.) STATED in brief the facts leading to the present revision petition are as under :

(3.) SRI Ashok B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal and another reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 strongly contended that on meaningful - not formal reading of the averments in the plaint it could be seen that they do not constitute or disclose any cause of action to the respondent-plaintiffs against the defendants entitling the plaintiffs to the reliefs sought for in the said suit. Sri S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mayar (H. K.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express and Ors. reported in air 2006 SC 1828 submitted that if the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. and, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact to be gathered from the averments made in the entire plaint and therefore, if they are so read, it could be seen that the plaint discloses cause of action to the respondent-plaintiffs against petitioner-defendants.