PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. IKRAM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

(2.) Present revision has been filed with the following prayer:

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite party No. 1-plaintiff has filed Original Suit No. 308 of 2023 and from the perusal of the aforesaid plaint, no cause of action is made out against revisionist-defendant No. 5 IInd set, therefore, revisionist-defendant has filed application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC to reject the plaint, which was dismissed vide impugned order dtd. 16/5/2024. He firmly submitted that once it is undisputed from the plaint that not a single word has been written against the revisionist-defendant, therefore, it is required for the court to reject the plaint, so far as it relates to revisionist-defendant. He next submitted that application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC has been filed on the ground that no cause of action has arose for filing of suit against revisionist-defendant and on this ground alone, plaint is liable to be rejected, but the court below has not returned any finding on this point and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC by the order impugned. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others: AIR 1998 SC 634, judgment of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Nandalal N. Verma And Co. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Mills(Leasee) Pvt. Ltd.: (1994)2CALLT82(HC) and judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of M.V. "Sea Success I" Vs. Liverpool And London Steamship: 2002(2) BOMCR537.