EUREKA FORBES LTD Vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Single Judge sitting on the original side of this Court had declined to reject the plaint in a suit for infringement of a patent and dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure. The present appeal assails the correctness of that order.

(2.) THE legal position as to the approach that the Courts have to adopt while dealing with applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is well settled by a series of judicial pronouncements including those by the Supreme court. Before we refer to some of those decisions, we may extract Order VII rule 11 of the CPC for ready reference. It reads :

(3.) IT would appear from the above that a plaint may be rejected on anyone of the grounds enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 supra which include the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The expression "cause of action" has not been defined by the Code but judicial decisions have universally understood that expression to mean the bundle of facts which the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain the reliefs prayed for in the suit. Whether or not the plaint discloses a cause of action would depend upon whether the averments made in the plaint if proved at the trial would entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for by him. What is noteworthy is that the Court has for purposes of answering that question to presume the avernments in the plaint to be factually correct. It is only if no relief can at all be given to the plaintiff even if the avernments are taken as admitted that the Court may declare that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. We at at this stage refer to a few decisions on the subject before proceeding further.