GUNJAN KHANNA Vs. ARUNBHA MAITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the application filed by the defendant (petitioner No. 1 herein) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint of the respondent (plaintiff in the court below) on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner No. 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent erred in impleading the petitioner No. 1 as a defendant in a suit instituted by him for a decree of Rs. 4,35,450/ - as compensation for the loss suffered on account of damages to goods at his premises as also for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - as compensation for harassment. Separate written statements were filed by the petitioner No. 1 (defendant No. 1 in the court below) and the petitioner No. 2 (defendant No. 2 in the court below). One of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1 was that the suit suffered from non -joinder and mis -joinder of necessary parties. It was averred that the petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1 had been wrongly impleaded in the said proceedings. A similar preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner No. 2/defendant No. 2 in his written statement. However, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed only by the petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1, praying inter alia for rejection of the plaint of the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that there was no cause of action qua her and no privity of relationship between her and the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) AFTER considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1, the trial court observed that the plaint could not be rejected on the ground of non -disclosure of cause of action and that assuming the averments made by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint to be true at the said stage, it did disclose a cause of action against both the defendants (petitioners herein) and hence, there was no reason to reject the plaint. As a result, the application was dismissed.

(3.) THIS Court has examined the documents placed on the record, particularly the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The plea of the counsel for the petitioners/defendants that no cause of action has been disclosed by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint, has to be examined in the light of the averments contained in the plaint. The plaintiff is the master of pleadings and at the initial stage, the averments contained in the plaint are to be examined as they stand, so as to conclude as to whether a cause of action has accrued in favour of the plaintiff or not.