SUKRUTI DUGAL Vs. JAHNAVI DUGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has called in question, the legality of the judgment dated 23.09.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 649/2018, whereunder an application filed by the respondent No.3/defendant No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been allowed by treating the same as an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and consequently, the suit instituted by her has been dismissed for want of cause of action.

(2.) The facts of the case have been succinctly captured in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment and are reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference:-

(3.) On 13.3.2019, the appellant/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (I.A. 3975/2019) praying inter alia for amendment of the plaint on the ground that it was disclosed to her for the first time during the course of the hearing before the learned Single Judge on 07.03.2019, that a partition suit instituted by her mother, respondent No.1 against her brother, respondent No.3 registered as CS(OS) 1175/2010, was disposed of on the basis of a consent decree dated 04.02.2015. Claiming that she was unaware of the said proceedings and the compromise arrived at between her mother and her uncle was behind her back, the appellant/plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint by incorporating relevant averments therein to assail the compromise decree passed in the captioned suit and for an additional relief of declaration to the effect that the said consent decree was not binding on her since she was not a party to the compromise. As a matter of chance, on the very same date, i.e., on 13.03.2019, the respondent No.3 also moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (I.A. 3976/2019), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was devoid of any cause of action and lacked material particulars about the creation of an HUF. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed both the applications.