NIRMALA UNIYAL Vs. RAM KRISHNA UNIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 15.3.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Suit No. 284 of 2007, whereby said Court has allowed the Application 12C, moved under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "Code of Civil Procedure").

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant argued that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure only on the grounds mentioned in Rule 11 i.e. where the plaint does not disclose cause of action, where the relief is under valued or court -fee paid is insufficient or where the suit is barred by law. In addition to this, now by way of amendment, two more grounds are added, one relating to not filing a duplicate copy of the plaint and another where the plaintiff has not complied with the provision of Rule 9. We are concerned with the grounds (a) and (d) mentioned in Rule 11 on which the plaint was sought to be rejected. As far as disclosure of cause of action is concerned, the copy of the plaint, which is Annexure -3 to the affidavit in this appeal, shows that the appellant had clearly pleaded in the petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (registered as Suit No. 284 of 2007) that her husband (respondent) had left the petitioner without any reasonable and probable cause. In Para 2 and onwards, the facts are clearly stated showing the cause of action. As such, it cannot be said that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action.